c.cc. c e c 



<>:■ -*> 






«_JC 



i c:.o 5^ 
c:cc c: 



«*cc«e 



«^ cC 

c<r c<cc 

OCT CCO 

c«rz ccr c 

C c c C c 

c c cc c < 

C C <3C.CC 

- C CCCC 

•""•<„ CjCjCC 

< <L CSLc .c ^ 

<L ■« C CC C < < 

C< CCCXC 

c .c_ 'dec. c 
<: « d <--.t <-. c « 

ex c \.o ■- 



^c? 

: ec 



ee^asese*^ 






| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 

UNITED TATES OF AMERICA 



^< C_ 4 ! 


PEL- < 






<c «: « 


' C 




< 


<^ ^2 


c , 


■CT ^^ 


c ; 


CT CT 


c " < 


C <T 


c c 



C1CCLC 

<c: ex; < 

CC dC - 

^Cfcc 

<rcc «c 

ccc -. 

ex :x<" «c 

^^ 

<rco 
c<cc<: 



ccr d 

CC1C 



*rc c 



<£ C 

C' c c 



* ^ 



cc *C 

ccccr; 

CcC 



cu.c CcC 
■<:■ 'c;cl~ «*c 
«c:<.cc c «Bg c * 

. c<< C ' 






c 


cc<£ 




ccc 


C'C<"> 


c£Jt 


<: 


mi 


( < 


<cc 


/ < 





<fc c <tr etc <£<< 

rcc ^L' etc *p; c 
ccc c a: err «r.c- c 

C c c ^L. ^ 

c. c c_ ; 



<r < 

c r 
c c 
C C 




V. 






4h 


c < 


< < 
r 


c 


C 

c 


c 


<r 


«3 




r 

K 

c 


: c 

1 c 

... c 

: c 


c 
c 

c 

C 

• *- 






2 


< 




C< 

C 1 

1 


P 


V V 


Sic <.. <rj 


CiT 4L 


r' 




<- c 


c *: 


: c 

c 
C 


< 
< 


ff 


■ 

<• < 

<• <■ 
< 


< < 

c 

< 

- ^ 


C3 


c c 

<£ C 

CC 

cc 

Cc 






* 


r— - 




5 




< 


C^ 


«£ 


< 


: c 






s ^ cr*r'€r 



<L 


.«<5 


<L 


CCC 


<L 


«K 


<c 


CC£ 


0: 


C<C 


Cc 


c<C 


8^ 


c*C 




_ cc< 


^[T 


CC 



5=^ ^- 




«^ <« 


^ S 




^c «c 


P J 




^ cc 


^ ^ 




c:. «: 


F 5 




<L <*Ci 


F 5 


-J, 


^ « 


^— . c 


5=^ 


5: « 


K. < 


-: . 


C «1 


^y — ■ 


<_ 


^ «^- 


^b= * 


c 


<T r*r 


«I 


^ -" 


<r 


%^ 4 




^^ 


<~ 


<r- 


3r~ 


^d 


c 




r ~~ 



c c c 

c_ 
c c < 



c: c < 






<c c f<: 



«L re 

<R cc * 
<rc cc c< 

OLCCC 



ocu c c 
<:i^ cc 4 

cc (CC 
CC(c - = 



<^ < 

C! 

<7 




c 


<TC 
<-c 


Cc 


< 




C < 


dc 


<C 




< 


« 


^T '. 


< 


« 


•c 




< 


< 


*c 




<r 


c 


( » 


c 




i 



^ca.< 
Cc;cc<l 



CC cr <T 

cc cc <: 

. cccc<: 



GccC 
^CCClJ 



CCcc < 
CC c <: 



cc (C. 
a cc 

<c cc 

COCC 

f'CCC 



<c < <- 






< 'C 

rcC 

<<: 

cC 



* c c c 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED 



AND 



RE-EXAMINED, 



COMPRISING THE TRACT 



"EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE," 



3 



AND THE 



CONTROVERSY 



CONCERNING THAT PUBLICATION. 



A 



We make this humble motion , that the regiments on both sides may be discharged out of the field, 
and the point disputed by dint of holy Scripture; id verum quod pnmum.-The Divine* una 
<irgue>l vith Charles J. in the hie of Wight. 



NEW-YORK: 




PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL TRACT SOCIETY; 

Depository, Press Buildings, No. 46 Lumber-street, 
in rear of Trinity Church. 



Printed at the Protestant Episcopal Pre*$, 
No. 46 Lumber-street. 

1835. 



CONTENTS. 



Ya%e. 

Introduction, v 

Tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture/' 1 

Postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," .... 29 

Appendix.— Notes to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture/' . . 37 

Timothy an Apostle, 47 

Review of "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," .... 53 

Answer to that Review, 93 

Essay— on the Question — When did Paul place Timothy over the 

Church at Ephesus 1 114 

Second Review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," &c, . . 130 

Answer to the Second Review, . 175 

Review, from the Biblical Repertory, of " Episcopacy Tested by 

Scripture," . 200 

Answer to the Third Review, 229 

Dissertation on the False Apostles mentioned in Scripture, . », 267 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The Essay, « Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," had been pub- 
lished more than three years, before an attempt was made to 
reply to it. Early in the year 1834 it was reviewed m the 
« Quarterly Christian Spectator," by the Rev. Albert Barnes, of 
Philadelphia. This review was immediately followed by an 
answer, in the "Protestant Episcopalian," by Bishop H. U. On- 
derdonk. Of this answer a further review appeared m the 
periodical first mentioned, in the spring of the present year, 
by the same Rev. Author; which was replied to by Bishop 
Onderdonk in the "Protestant Episcopalian" for June. *or 
the full information of the Christian public, on the subject ot 
Episcopacy, so far as these productions throw light upon it, the 
whole of them are now republished, in order, the reviews and 
replies from the respective journals, by the Protestant Episcopal 

Tract Society. . „ , . 

Another review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," having 
appeared in the "Biblical Repertory," for April, 1835, that also, 
and the reply of Bishop Onderdonk, are republished by the 

S( Two 'short pieces on the Apostleship of Timothy, from the 
"Protestant Episcopalian," are inserted, after the Tract and its 
Appendix, that the whole of that argument may likewise be before 
the reader. A Dissertation on the case of the False Apostles is 
appended at the close of the publication. 



FURTHER ADVERTISEMENT. 



Since the second reply to Mr. Barnes was printed in the 
" Protestant Episcopalian," we have observed, in turning casually 
over the pages of his little volume, that he has there extracted 
at large, what he merely referred to in the first edition of his first 
review, the argument of the late Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was 
placed at Ephesus by Paul at the time the latter fled from that 
city, in consequence of the riot or "uproar" mentioned in 
Acts xx. 1. We did not deem it necessary to answer a mere 
reference to an argument contained in a different work from the 
one then before us. But as the full reprint of it may seem to 
make our reply incomplete, particularly to the assertion of 
Mr. Barnes, which he of course deems more fully illustrated by 
the extract from Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was placed at Ephe- 
sus only " temporarily," we refer, in return, to the arguments 
of Macknight, concerning the date of the first epistle to him, 
and his connexion with the church in that city. (See his Pre- 
face to the Epistle, sect. 2 ; and Life of Paul, chap, xi.) We 
also ask the reader's attention to an essay on the subject, from 
the " Protestant Episcopalian," for May, 1831 ; which is here 
reprinted after our answer to Mr. Barnes* first review. 

<*> H. U. <x 



INTRODUCTION. 



In his Answer to the Review of "Episcopacy Tested by 
Scripture," by the Rev. Mr. Barnes, the author of that tract 
affirmed that the presumptive argument is with the advocates 
of Episcopacy, and the burden of proof on its opponents. This 
consideration is not without weight ; and, as it was omitted in 
the Tract, a statement of it is here prefixed. 

By the presumptive argument is meant, a reason or reasons 
for presuming a proposition to be true, before the main discus- 
sion is entered upon. By the burden of proof, so far as it is con- 
trasted with this argument, is meant, the necessity of refuting a 
reason or reasons for presuming, before commencing the decisive 
investigation, that a certain proposition is untrue. 

When it is alleged, as it sometimes is, that the burden of proof 
in this controversy lies on Episcopalians, the only ground of the 
allegation is, that the claims of Episcopacy displace all Non- 
episcopal ministers, and unchurch all Non-episcopal denomina- 
tions. The latter consequence is disclaimed by the author of 
the Tract. And as to the former, and indeed both, if both are 
supposed to follow, they may indeed, as being unacceptable to 
the feelings, require cogent and decisive arguments for our 
claims ; but they do not affect what is logically called the burden 
of proof. Because a thing is, is no presumption that it is right. 
Because there are Non-episcopal ministers, is no presumption 
that their ministry is valid. The comparative merits of Chris- 
tianity and Mahomedism, for example, are to be discussed ; if 
Christianity shall have the better of the argument, it will dis- 
place the latter religion and its ministers ; does this consequence 
throw the burden of proof, as distinguished from the argument 
proper, on the former ? Surely not : because Mahomedism and 
Mahomedan ministers exist, is no presumption that they have 
truth on their side. Again : the question between the Quakers 
and those who hold to an ordained ministry and visible sacra- 
ments, is to be discussed ; if the latter party prevail, they un- 
church the former and displace their ministry ; but against the 

1* (5) 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

justice of these consequences there is, for the reason given, no 
logical presumption. So, when some Romanists deny our 
ministry; though we have this presumptive argument against 
them, that, as no one civil ruler and government has ever swayed 
the whole world, it may be supposed that no one ecclesiastical 
ruler and government ought to have dominion over all churches ; 
yet we make no further claim to throw on them the burden 
of proof. And our Non-episcopal brethren must submit to the 
same obvious rule. 

A presumptive argument for a ministry is, that in all civil 
society the people have officers over them. A similar presump- 
tive argument for Episcopacy is, that in all large civil societies, the 
officers over the smaller portions of the people have higher offi- 
cers over them. The number of grades among the officers may 
vary, as expediency shall dictate ; but there is always the feature 
in civil governments of magnitude, that many officers, and 
several grades of them, have a common head above all. The 
exceptions to this rule are few, if any, and are of course unavail- 
ing in this discussion. We find the same rule in armies, navies, 
corporations, colleges, associations. Human wisdom then, or 
common sense, as indicated by almost invariable practice, 
declares for grades of officers, and a chief grade superior to the 
rest. And the presumptive argument is obviously on this side 
of the question between clerical imparity and parity ; it is in 
favor of Episcopacy ; and the burden of proof, whether that 
proof be sought in Scripture or elsewhere, is on those who act in 
opposition to this all but universal rule. 

Another presumptive argument for Episcopacy is, that in the 
ministries of all false religions, if extensively professed, there 
are different grades, with a common superior. This feature 
cannot, without a petitio principii, be deemed one of the errors 
of these religious ; nay, it is sanctioned, as will immediately be 
shown, by dispensations allowed to be from God. From these 
dispensations was the Heathen and Mahomedan imparity bor- 
rowed ; or else it was instituted in accordance with the dictates 
of human wisdom and common sense. Take either view, and 
we have a further presumptive argument for clerical imparity, 
or Episcopacy. 

A third presumptive argument in our favor is found in the 
Patriarchal Church. Abraham was a priest, as well as Melchi- 
sedec : yet he paid tithes to him ; which proves ,the superior 
priestly rank of Melchisedec. To the same effect, the Epistle to 



INTRODUCTION. Vll 

the Hebrews declares our Lord to be both a "priest" and a 
" high-priest " after the order of Melchisedec ; and there could 
have been no high-priest in that order without inferior priests. 
Hence a third presumption — and one peculiarly strong^ if the 
order of Melchisedec be that of the Christian ministry — for 
more than one grade in the latter. 

A fourth presumption is drawn from the Mosaic priesthood, 
which consisted of a high-priest, priests and Levites. This ana- 
logy with the three grades of Episcopacy is too obvious to need 
amplification. 

We adduce, then, the almost universal voice of human wisdom, 
common sense, and the universal rule of all widely-spread 
religions, false and true, as presumptive arguments that when 
our Saviour organized his ministry he would organize it on 
the principle of imparity. With this almost conclusive pre- 
sumption in favor of Episcopacy, let the reader enter upon the 
{f testing " of that model of the sacred office by " Scripture." 
This presumption is so weighty, that nothing but perfectly 
clear and explicit passages against ministerial imparity can 
overturn it ; yet such passages there are none. Only obscure 
texts, of doubtful meaning at best, are adduced in opposition to 
this argument, and the claims of Episcopacy. The whole clear 
current of revealed evidence is with these presumptions, and 
decides in favor of our ministry. 

H. U. Onderdonk. 
Philadelphia, 1835. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 



The claim of episcopacy to be of divine institution, and 
therefore obligatory on the Church, rests fundamentally on the 
one question— has it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, 
it is not necessarily binding. If it has, the next and only other 
question is — has any different arrangement of the sacred minis- 
try scriptural authority? If there be any such, that also has 
divine sanction, and must stand with episcopacy. If, however, 
none such can be found, then episcopacy alone has the counte- 
nance of the word of God. 

Such a statement of the essential point of the episcopal con- 
troversy is entirely simple ; and this one point should be kept ia 
view in every discussion of the subject ; no argument is worth 
taking into account that has not a palpable bearing on the 
clear and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of episcopacy. 
It is easy indeed to make a plain topic seem complicated 5 infi- 
delity casts its flimsy shadow over the doctrine of a God ; scep- 
ticism weaves its webs about the evidence of the senses 5 Socini- 
anism cannot discern in Scripture proof that the death of Christ 
was a proper atoning sacrifice ; and the same cavilling persecu- 
tion attends almost all simple truths, and that usually in propor- 
tion to their obviousness, or the facility of their demonstration. 
Episcopacy does not escape these inflictions of forensic injustice. 
Its simple and clear argument is obstructed with many extrane- 
ous and irrelevant difficulties, which, instead of aiding the mind 
in reaching the truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it, 
and occupy it with questions not affecting the main issue. These 
obstructions we must remove, and make ourselves a free and 
unimpeded course, if we desire to go forward with singleness 
of mind in testing episcopacy by Scripture, 

It will therefore be the first object of this essay, to point out 
some of these extraneous questions and difficulties, and expose 
either their fallacy or their irrelevancy. The next object will 
be, to state the scriptural argument. — Little or no reference will 
here be made to the fathers ; not because their testimony is 
depreciated ; for it is of paramount value, in showing how the 
Scriptures, connected with this controversy, were interpreted by 
those who knew how the apostles themselves understood them. 
But the present writer believes that Scripture alone will furnish 
such authority for episcopacy as will convince an unsophisti- 
cated judgment, and be held obligatory by an unprejudiced 
conscience. 



4 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

I. In order to keep the judgment and the conscience thus 
clear, all extraneous considerations must be set aside. To effect 
this purgation of the argument is our first object. 

1. An objection or allegation, entirely extraneous to scriptural 
reasoning, but often made to bear on the episcopal controversy, 
is — that our ecclesiastical system is inimical to free civil govern- 
ment. We first answer to this objection, that it is irrelevant ; 
for if episcopacy be set forth in Scripture, it is the ordinance of 
God ; of course, free civil governments must, in that case, accede 
to its unqualified toleration ; and the citizens professing Chris- 
tianity are individually bound to conform to it. No serious per- 
son will set any rights of man above the will of God. We nex 4 
answer, that the allegation is proved to be false by experience^ 
In this country, no firmer friends of civil liberty could or can 
be found, formerly or at present, than in the Protestant Episcopal 
Church ; nor is there any class of men belonging to that body 
who are not the friends of civil liberty ; and in Great Britain the 
same remark holds true, according to the standard of freedom 
there deemed constitutional. But we have a third answer— the 
allegation is false in theory. No free government need fear any 
reputable denomination, which is not established, and does not 
intermeddle with political affairs. Should any denomination be 
tempted thus to intermeddle, the re-action of the spirit of free* 
dom will give it a lesson not to be forgotten in a century. And, 
as episcopacy is more adverse than non-episcopacy to setting in 
motion popular cm-rents, or to taking advantage of them 3 that 
ecclesiastical system is less likely to fall into such an error. 
Moreover, when we add to this consideration, that all free 
governments must desire, from their very nature, to keep popu- 
lar influence and impulse to themselves, we may securely affirm, 
that episcopacy is peculiarly adapted to free government : not 
affecting mere popularity, it leaves that field of competition en- 
tirely to politicians. Whatever be the reverence and attachment 
felt towards our bishops, they can seldom, probably never, attain 
to general notoriety and favour in any branch of civil affairs ; 
none of them have thus far sought any thing of the kind ; out 
of their ecclesiastical sphere, their influence, other than pertains 
to all virtuous citizens, will ever be but small, or harmless, or 
exceedingly transient. An arbitrary government may indeed 
find the case different. If the people at large are prostrated by 
or to the civil power, they may be equally or more subservient 
to ecclesiastical domination ; in which case, bishops (like all reli- 
gious leaders) may sometimes prove less tractable than that 
government desires. But are not such interferences as likely to 
be favourable to the subject, and his few rights, as against them? 
And, whether this suggestion be granted or denied, the operation 
of episcopacy in and on an arbitrary government is not the 
point before us. — We assert that the allegation that episcopacy 
is, in any sense, unfavourable to free civil government, is in- 
correct, both in theory and in fact, and that the whole objection 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. £ 

is irrelevant to the inquiry, whether episcopacy be according to 
the word of God. . ' 

2 Another of these extraneous considerations is— -the com- 
parative standing in piety, as evinced by the usual tokens of 
moral and spiritual character, of the members respectively of 
the episcopal and non-episcopal Churches. This question is 
highly important in itself; but it has no bearing on the argument 
for or against episcopacy. We have the authority of our Sa- 
viour for the utter moral and spiritual worthlessness of the 
Scribes and Pharisees of his day : but we have also his authority 
for declaring that, in spite of their bad character, they sat m 
Moses 5 seat :" a and that the people were therefore bound to 
obey them, while yet they were to avoid following their evil 
example. Suppose, then, the reader were persuaded that all the 
bishops in the world were "hypocrites, 55 &c. &c, and that all 
episcopal Churches were in a corresponding state of degradation, 
still if Scripture be alleged for the claim that " bishops sit in the 
apostles 5 seats, 55 it is but right, in testing that particular claim, 
that there be no reference whatever to the personal character 
of bishops, or to any real or supposed want of spirituality in the 
Churches under their government. Our Saviour clearly taught, 
in the passage alluded to, the entire distinctness of these two 
questions. Balaam also was a wicked man, but a true prophet. 
The sons of Eli, bad as they were, c ceased not to be priests. 
The Israelites at large were often corrupt and idolatrous ; but 
they never lost their standing as the earthly and visible Church, 
till their dispensation was superseded by that of the gospel. 
Those therefore, who even maintain that episcopacy is essential 
to the being of a Church, are not to be worsted by the extraneous 
argument now before us, the comparative standing in piety of 
Episcopalians and Non-Episcopalians. And, though the present 
writer subscribes not to that extreme opinion, his moderation 
nas no affinity with the illogical temperament of mind which 
allows the question of comparative piety to be obtruded upon 
the investigation of the simple point— is episcopacy to be found 
in Scripture? n> ^ J ' 

In justice, however, to Episcopalians, he deems it proper to 
add, that he does not believe they will suffer by any comparison 
of their character with those of other denominations. < 

3. A further suggestion, allied to the one last mentioned, and 
like it extraneous°to the scriptural claim of episcopacy, is— that 
the external arrangements of religion are but of inferior im- 
portance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the subject 
before us may be dispensed with. Now, that there are, m the 
word of God, things more important, and things less important, 
is unquestionable ; and that the sin of omitting a lesser duty is 
not so deep as that of omitting a greater, will be allowed, btili, 
the least sin is sin. Perhaps there was no part of the old law 

a Matt, xxiil 2. b Num. xxii. to xxiv. and xxxi. 16. c 1 Sam. iL 

1* 



6 EPKCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

that stood lower in the scale of importance than " paying tithes 
of mint, anise, and cummin ;" yet our Saviour declared to the 
Jews that even this was a duty which they " ought not to leave 
undone." 11 — Can then episcopacy, though regarded as an affair 
of the merest outward order, be rated lower than these insignifi- 
cant tithes 1 If it cannot, it has a sufficient claim to consideration ; 
high as we deem the obligation to conform to episcopacy, it is 
enough for the present branch of our argument, that it " ought 
not to be left" unheeded. 

4. An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty, often 
raised, is — that episcopal claims unchurch all non-episcopal de- 
nominations. By the present writer this consequence is not al- 
lowed. But, granting it to the fullest extent, what bearing has 
it on the truth of the simple proposition, that episcopacy is of 
divine ordinance? Such a consequence, as involving the exclusion 
from the covenant of worthy persons who believe themselves in 
it, is unquestionably fraught with painful reflections, and that to 
the serious of both parties : but so are many undeniable truths. 
Considerations of this kind cannot affect- any sound proposition. 
— Some other considerations, not without value, here present 
themselves; If Job lived about the time of Moses, or later, he 
was not in the Church ; yet he was eminently pious, and in fa- 
vour with God : and the same, with some qualification, may be 
said of his friends. Balaam was not in the Church, yet he was 
an inspired prophet. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, a ser- 
vant of the true God, of whose sacrificial feast, Moses, Aaron, 
and the elders of Israel participated, 6 was not in the Church. 
The descendants of Jethro, who lived with Israel/ and must 
have shared the benefit of the divine oracles, belonged not, we 
think, to the Church, but were uncircumcised, at least for many 
centuries : and, under the name of Rechabites, these people thus 
living with Israel, though not of Israel, and calling themselves 
i: strangers," were highly commended by the Deity, at the very 
time he passed a severe censure on his Church or covenant peo- 
ple/ The countenance given to other proselytes of the gate, h 
is a further illustration to the same effect — viz. that, though all 
who hear the gospel are bound to enter the Church by baptism, 
yet if any, honest in their error, think they are not thus bound, 
there is Scripture for the assertion, that worthy professors of the 
true religion, innocently without the covenant-pale, are accepted 
with God. — Viewing, therefore, the objection before us in even 
its largest form, it is not of a kind to be driven away from 
decorous consideration. To say that other denominations of 

d Matt, xxiii. 23. Luke xi. 42. e Exod. xviii. II, 12. f Judges i. 16., iv. 11. 

g Jer. xxxv- The question whether the descendants of Jethro were circumcised 
and belonged to the Church, is discussed, and a negative conclusion drawn, in the 
Protestant Episcopalian, for October, 1830, p. 368. Should, however, any reader 
incline to a different opinion, he will please regard as omitted so much of the above 
argument as is involved in that question : it affords only an incidental illustration of 
the subject, without having the least bearing on our main point. 

h See Hammond on Matt, xxiii. 15., and Calmet's Dictionary* 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 7 

Christians belong not to the Church, by no ■ means implies that 
they are cast out from the mercy of God through the Saviour — 
or, that they are inferior to the Church in moral and spiritual 
character — or even, that they are not superior in these respects 
to its members. Still, none of these concessions, supposing 
even the last of them were made, can render void the divine 
appointment of the Church, the divine command to " all na- 
tions," and of course to all mankind, to be united with it, or the 
scriptural evidence for episcopacy as the divinely sanctioned or- 
ganization of its ministry. 

Many Episcopalians, however, disclaim the unchurching of 
those who disallow the episcopal model of the sacred orders. 
Their reasons for doing so pertain not to the present field of 
controversy. They think that episcopacy is a sufficiently dis- 
tinct question, to be separately carried into Scripture, and there 
separately investigated. They think that its scriptural claims 
can be sufficiently proved to make its rejection a clear contra- 
vention of the word of God, of the intimations there given us 
concerning his will in this matter. And, if this amount of proof 
can be offered for the point before us, what serious and con- 
scientious believer will ask for either more evidence, or for its 
embracing other points, with which the question of episcopacy 
is not essentially involved ? 

5. We proceed to other extraneous matter, which, though 
scarcely plausible even in appearance, is almost uniformly dwelt 
upon by both parties in this controversy. It is — the adducing 
of the authority of individuals, who, though eminent both for 
learning and piety, seem at least to have contradicted themselves, 
or their public standards, on the subject of episcopacy; and 
who therefore are brought into the fore-ground by either side 
as may serve its turn. Now, is it not clear, that the only effect 
of appeals to such authorities is to distract sound investigation 
and the unbiassed search for truth 1 If the writers in question 
absolutely contradict themselves or the standards they have 
assented to, their authority in the case is void ; if they seem to 
do so, their opinions cease to be convincing ; they should there- 
fore, all of them, be surrendered. The consistency of such in- 
dividuals is a question for their biographers ; it may also belong 
to the Churches which acknowledge them as leaders ; but it cer- 
tainly is not relevant to the main issue concerning the claims, 
whether of episcopacy or of parity. A similar rule will apply 
to all cases of instability or indecision concerning truth. Men 
of the highest standing for information, for integrity, and in 
public confidence, are not only fallible, but are often in situations 
of such perplexity, that they attach themselves to an opinion, or 
select a course o£ conduct, without perhaps sufficient inquiry or 
insight into the case ; which opinion Or conduct may be at the 
time, or may afterwards be found, somewhat at variance with 
their more deliberate judgments. In public life especially, such 
difficulties are very appalling. The present writer would not 



8 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

regard the mistakes of this sort into which the eminent indivi- 
duals he now has in mind may have fallen, as blemishes which 
men are called upon to censure, much less to exaggerate or vilify ; 
let it suffice that we do not imitate them ; their and our Master, 
we doubt not, remembers in mercy that we all are but dust. — 
Most of the principal reformers are to be enumerated under this 
head of our subject, Luther, Melancthon, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza; 
we need not extend the list ; they have all been somewhat in- 
consistent on the subject of episcopacy 5 not much so perhaps to 
a candid, or at least to a mild judgment ; yet enough to impair 
the authority of their individual opinions in regard to the scrip- 
tural constitution of the ministry. — Another class of illustrious 
and good men have been yet more inconsistent ; those who, be- 
longing to the Episcopal [English] Church, and acting in the 
various grades of her ministry, not excepting the highest, were 
the friends of parity, or at least were not friendly to the episco- 
pacy in or under which they acted. In regard to these also, let 
it be conceded that even Episcopalians will not criminate them. 
But let them not be quoted as having authority in this contro- 
versy, no, not the least ; for, however innocent may have been 
the motive of their inconsistency, that unfortunate quality is too 
visible to allow their opinions on this subject to have, as such, 
the least weight in an impartial mind. — A third class may be 
here added; those who changed their deliberate sentiments 
concerning the claims of episcopacy ; among whom Bishop 
Stillingfleet is conspicuous. Perhaps, in such cases, the later 
and maturer opinion should be regarded as outweighing the 
earlier one abjured. But we prefer setting them both aside, as 
having none of the authority due to the individual decisions of 
the learned. The arguments indeed of all the above classes of 
persons are worth as much as they ever were, and may be again 
adduced, if they have not been refuted. And what they placed 
in their respective public standards, or allowed to be so placed, 
cannot be retracted, till it be denied as solemnly as it was affirm- 
ed. But their individual changes of opinion, or vacillations, or 
concessions, ought not to be deemed of any force whatever, for 
or against either party. 1 We reject, therefore, this whole extra- 
neous appendage of the controversy before us. The inquirer 
after truth has nothing to do with it. Let the admirers of these 



i Should it be argued, that, from the inconsistency with which these learned and 
pious men have expressed themselves on this subject, we may infer their belief in 
the non-importance or uncertainty of the point here controverted — I answer, that 
such a conclusion is not warranted by the premises. If these eminent persons had 
deemed the question nugatory, they would have said so plainly. Or, if any of them 
give such intimations, that is a separate question, extraneous to the one now before 
us, and we have answered it in a previous paragraph, marked 3. These persons, 
however, generally take sides respecting episcopacy, but do not inflexibly adhere to 
them. The true inference therefore is, either that they were not entirely consistent, 
or that they had not full information or full mental discipline in this argument. Take 
any view of their case, and it wiU be found that their opinions cannot, as such, hav« 
weight in our controversy. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 9 

eminent individuals endeavour to clear away the slight shades 
thus resting upon their memories ; it is a proper, it is even a 
pious undertaking ; and it may, in some of the cases, have been 
done sufficiently for* personal vindication. But nothing of this 
kind can make them rank as either authorities or guides in the 
present controversy. 

Appealing to every candid and impartial mind for the sound- 
ness of the above rule, we would add — that the rule applies to 
the fathers, as much as to later ornaments of the Church. One, 
at least, of the fathers has written in a contradictory manner 
concerning episcopacy. It will indeed be with reluctance that 
our non-episcopal brethren surrender Jerome, their chief, if not 
only authority among these ancient Christian writers. But it 
will be hard to show that he was in no degree inconsistent in 
his views of episcopacy ; it is impossible to show it in such a 
manner as may, without question, claim to be convincing to 
both parties. k Believing this ourselves, and believing also that 
it will appear self-evident to most who are duly informed, we 
appeal to thd calm and conscientious decision of the reader, 
whether the opinions of Jerome must not be set aside, as having 
no authority in the main issue before us. His opinions, we say, 
for he asserts nothing as a fact, on his personal knowledge ; and 
much of what he does assert is contrary to the testimony of ear- 
lier fathers. 

6. The last objection we shall notice, as, however plausible, 
not affecting the ultimate decision of our controversy, is — that 
though the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to 
favour episcopacy, still that regimen is not there explicitly com- 
manded. Now, this allegation may be fully conceded on our 
Dart, without endangering the final success of our cause. We 
say, may be conceded ; for if episcopacy be allowed to be the 
model exemplified in Scripture, it was of course to tkat model 
the apostle alluded when he desired the brethren to " remember, 
obey, and submit themselves to those who had the rule over 
them, who had spoken to them the word of God, and who 
watched for their souls f l which passages, we may justly affirm, 
were, in that case, an inspired command to acknowledge a 
ministry constituted on the episcopal scheme. "Without surren- 
dering this argument, we may, in the present stage of the dis- 
cussion, proceed without it. 

Let then any candid and conscientious believer say, whether 
a mere hint or intimation contained in Scripture, (always ex- 



k Jerome, as quoted in favour of parity, is glaringly inconsistent. On the episcopal 
side, however, some writers endeavour to reconcile his incongruous opinions. (See 
Bishop White on the Catechism, p. 466; and Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 101. [p. 283, 
2d ed.] &c.) But the fact speaks for itself that he is usually adduced on both sides 
of this controversy. Enough to prove his inconsistency may be found in Potter 
on Church Government, p. 180, Amer. Edit.; in Bishop Hobart's Apology, p. 179, 
&c. ; in Bowden's Letters ; in the Episcopal Manual, p. 38 ; and in the Protestant 
Episcopalian, No. 3. p 90, 97, 98. 

1 Heb. xiii. 7, 17. 



10 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

cepting what refers to things or circumstances declared to be 
transient, or such in their nature,) though it have not the force 
of an express command, is not sufficiently binding on every 
servant of God ? St. Paul says of the Gentiles, " these, having 
not the law, are a law unto themselves ;" m they had not the 
positive revealed law, yet the light of nature, which only inti- 
mates what we ought to do, but does not specifically prescribe 
it, was " a law" to them, having sufficient obligation to make its 
suggestions their duty, and to give those suggestions full author- 
ity in " their conscience :" and surely the hints recorded by the 
Deity in his word are not inferior in obligation to those afforded 
in his works. Take a few examples. There is no record of a 
command to observe a sabbath, during the whole antediluvian 
and patriarchal ages ; will it then be alleged that the mere de- 
claration that God " blessed and sanctified the seventh day" a did 
not sufficiently imply that it was the divine will that the seventh 
day should be kept holy 7 Again : there is no recorded com- 
mand, in all that early period, to observe the rite of sacrifice, and 
thus express faith in the great truth, that sin is remitted only by 
the shedding of blood ; shall we then presume — will it be pre- 
sumed, by any whose chief controversy with us is concerning 
episcopacy — that the records of the example of Abel in the an- 
tediluvian age, and of those of Noah, Abraham, &c, afterwards, 
were not sufficient intimations from God that to offer this sacra- 
mental atonement was a duty ?° Yet again : will any humble 
Christian deny, that the mere fact of the creation for each other 
of one man and one woman, is sufficient to show that polygamy is 
contrary to the will of God ?p To proceed to the New Testament. 
There is no positive command for infant baptism; but, its analo- 
gy with circumcision, <* the declaration that little children are 
models for conversion, 1 " the direction to suffer them to come to 
Christ, since of such is the kingdom of God, 8 the records of the 
baptism of "households" or families, 1 and the declaration 
that "children are holy" or saints* — are not these sufficient, 
whether as examples or as intimations, to satisfy us of the dic- 
tate of inspiration in this matter, and to authorize us to regard 
infant baptism as resting on scriptural authority ? And will not 
the same mode of reasoning be decisive concerning the change 
of the day of rest and devotion from the seventh to the first V 

m Rorn. ii. 14. n Gen. ii. 3. 

o If it be alleged that the " skins" (Gen. iii. 21.) in which the Deity clothed Adam 
and Eve, were from sacrificed animals, and that the record of that fact is the same 
as divine appointment and a positive command — we admit the fact, but deny that the 
inferences are thus identical with it. All that appears in that passage is an example 
of sacrifice. The obligation and permanency of the rite were but presumed from that 
example, as in the other instances mentioned. This record is but an intimation re- 
specting such a duty : yet an intimation of that sort was, we contend, imperative. 

p Gen. i. 27. ii. 24. v. 2. Mai. ii. 15. Matt, xix, 4, 5. Mark x. 6. 

q Col. ii. 11, 12. Rom. iv. 11, 16. Gal. iii. 7. r Matt, xviii. 3. 

s Mark x. 14. Matt. xix. 14. Luke xviii 16. t Acts xvi. 15, 33. 1 Cor. i 1& 

u 1 Cor. vii. 14. 

v John xx. 1, 26. Acts ii. 1 — 4. xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Rev. i. 10. 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 11 

Now, to apply this body of reasoning : Is it claiming too much, 
if the above illustrations be duly weighed, to assert that the mere 
example of the apostolical Church in regard to the model of the 
sacred ministry is obligatory, as an intimation of the divine will, 
without any explicit enactment 1 And if that example, as de- 
duced from Scripture, be episcopacy, nay, be episcopacy rather 
than parity — if the balance of sound interpretation favour epis- 
copacy ever so little more than any other scheme — will the duty 
of conforming, if possible, to that ministry be evaded ? can 
such conformity be, in this case, refused in foro conscientice 
animoque integro ? 

The above remarks, if allowed their due force, will greatly 
simplify the controversy before us, and will help us to investi- 
gate the bearing of Scripture upon it, with a clear judgment and 
an unsophisticated love of truth. Let then all extraneous topics 
be now forgotten ; let none of them again make their appearance 
in this discussion. 

II. Proceeding to the second department of our essay — an 
exhibition of the scriptural evidence relating to this controver- 
sy — we begin by stating the precise point at issue. Passing by 
the feeble claim of lay-ordination and a lay-ministry, which, we 
suppose, will scarcely pretend to rest on either scriptural com- 
mand or example, we consider this issue as between two systems 
only, episcopacy, and parity or the presbyterian ministry. w 
Parity declares that there is but one order of men authorized to 
minister in sacred things, all in this order being of equal grade, 
and having inherently equal spiritual rights. Episcopacy de- 
clares that the Christian ministry was established in three orders, 
called, ever since the apostolic age, Bishops, Presbyters or Elders, 
and Deacons ; of which the highest only has the right to ordain 
and confirm, that of general supervision in a diocese, and that 
of the chief administration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoy- 
ing all the powers of the other grades. The main question be- 
ing thus concerning the superiority of Bishops, and the rights 
of the next order being restricted only so much as not to be in- 
consistent with those of the highest, we need not extend our 
investigation of Scripture beyond what is requisite for this grand 
point. If we cannot authenticate the claims of the episcopal 
office, we will surrender those of our Deacons, and let all power 
be confined to the one office of Presbyters. But, if we can esta- 
blish the rights of our highest grade of the ministry, there can 
be little dispute concerning the degrees of sacred authority as- 
signed by us to the middle and lower grades. This is a further 
clearing of our argument, not indeed from extraneous or irrele 
vant matter, but from questions which are comparatively unim- 
portant. 

w Other denominations besides those called Presbyterians practise presbyterian 
ordination, as the Congregationalists, Baptists, &c. The ordination also of the Lu- 
therans and Methodists is presbyterian, Luther and Wesley (and Dr. Coke, the 
6ource of Methodist orders in this country) having orffy been Presbyters. 



12 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

The main issue then is— whether Presbyters (or, more strictly, 
Presbyters alone) have a scriptural right to ordain, or whether 
the agency of a minister of higher grade than Presbyters is not 
essential to the due performance of that act ? Whichever way 
this great issue be decided, all subordinate questions go with it, 
if not necessarily, yet because they will no longer be worth con- 
tending for, by either party. 

As some readers of this essay may not be familiar with the 
episcopal controversy, it is proper to advert to the fact, that the 
name " Bishop," which now designates the highest grade of the 
ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That 
name is there given to the middle order, or Presbyters ; and all 
that we read in the New Testament concerning " Bishops,"* (in- 
cluding, of course, the words " overseers," and " oversight,"? 
which have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining 
to that middle grade. The highest grade is there found in 
those called " Apostles," 2 and in some other individuals, as Titus, 
Timothy, 3 - and the "angels" of the seven Churches in Asia 
Minor, who have no official designation given them ; all which 
positions will be made good in the progress of this essay. It 
was after the apostolic age, that the name " Bishop" was taken 
from the second order and appropriated to the first ; as we learn 
from Theodoret, one of the fathers. b At first view, this difficulty 
respecting the names of the sacred orders may appear formida- 
ble ; but, if we can find the thing sought, i. e. an office higher 
than that of Presbyters or Elders, we need not regard its name. 
Irregularity in titles and designations is of so frequent occur- 
rence, yet occasions so little actual confusion, that it ought not 
to be viewed as a real difficulty in the case before us. Examples 
to this effect crowd upon us. The original meaning of c emperor 5 
(imperator) was only a general, but it was afterwards appro- 
priated to the monarch ; and the original meaning of ' Bishop' 
was only a Presbyter, but the name passed from that middle 
grade to the highest. There are, again, the c president' of the 
United States, 'presidents' of colleges, and 'presidents' of soci- 
eties 5 there are the i governor' of a commonwealth, l governors' 
of hospitals, and the ■ governor' of a jail ; there are * ministers' 
of state, and ' ministers' of religion ; there are c provosts' of col- 
leges, and i provosts-martial f there are ' elders' (senators) in a 

x Philip i. 1. . 1 Tim. iii. I, 2. Tit. i. 7. In 1 Pet. ii. 25. the word "bishop" is 
figuratively applied to our Saviour ; as " minister" [deacon] is in Rom. xv. 8 ; and 
"apostle" in Heb. iii I. It is worthy of note, that in the last passage, " apostle and 
high priest" are coupled together, as " bishop and shepherd," or pastor, are in the 
first. 

y Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet v. 2. 

z That the apostles alone ordained will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19 — 22 ; v. 3 — 5. 
2 Cor. ii 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and 
remissions of discipline performed by an Apostle, or threatenings on his part, although 
there must have been Elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus. 

a Timothy is usually supposed not to have the name " apostle" given to him in 
Scripture, and our main argument conforms to that supposition. 

b See Note A. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 13 

legislature, c elders' (aldermen) in a city government, ' elders' 
(Presbyters) in the Church, and lay ' elders' in some denomina- 
tions ; there were c consuls' in Rome and in France who were 
supreme civil magistrates, and there are ' consuls' who are mere 
commercial agents ; there are c captains' with a certain rank in 
the army or militia, ' captains' with much higher rank in the 
navy, and c captains' with no legal rank ; in France, ' monsieur 5 
and ' rnadame 5 are (or were) among the highest titles in the 
court, and are also the common appellation of respect among all 
ranks of the people. Here, one would say, is an almost un- 
limited confusion of names or designations ; yet this confusion 
is but apparent ; there is no real or practical difficulty in the use 
of them ; custom renders it all easy and clear. So, a little re- 
flection and practice will enable any of our readers to look in 
Scripture for the several sacred offices, independently of the 
names there or elsewhere given them. Let us say, in analogy 
with some of the above examples, that there are Bishops of 
parishes and Bishops of dioceses ; and when we find in the New 
Testament the name " Bishop," we must regard it as meaning the 
Bishop of a parish, or a Presbyter ; but the Bishop of a diocese,* 
or the highest grade of the ministry, we must there seek, not 
under that name, and independently of any name at all. We 
are inquiring for the thing, the fact, an order higher than Pres 
byters : the name is not worth a line of controversy. 

There was at least as much difference between the inferior 
kings, Herod, Archelaus, and Agrippa, and the supreme king 
Cesar, d as there is between the Presbyter-bishops of Scripture 
and the Bishops who succeed the Apostles ; the mere title 
" king," common to all these, was far from implying that they 
were all of one grade. 

One irregularity in regard to the application of names is par- 
ticularly worthy of notice. The word " sabbath" is applied in 
Scripture to only the Jewish day of rest ; by very common use 
however it means the Lord's day. Now, " the sabbath" is abo- 
lished by Christianity, and the observance of it discountenanced; 6 
yet ministers of Christian denominations are constantly urging 
their Christian flocks to keep " the sabbath." Does any confu- 
sion of the mind result from this confusion of names ? we sup- 
pose not. All concerned understand, that in Scripture the word 
means the Jewish sabbath, while out of Scripture the same word 
is commonly applied to the Christian sabbath. Let the same 
justice be done to the word " Bishop." In Scripture, it means a 
Presbyter, properly so called. Out of Scripture, according to 
the usage next to universal of all ages since the sacred canon 
was closed, it means that sacerdotal order, higher than Presby- 
ters, which is found in Scripture under the title of "Apostle." — 

c One having power to govern many churches and clergymen, whether fixed ♦> 
B diocese or not. 

d Matt. ii. 1, 22. Acts xxvi. 2. xvii. 7. John xix. 15. 
c Col. ii. 16, 17. GaL iv. 10. 

2 



14 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE, 

When a Christian teacher who enjoins the observance of the 
day which he calls " the sabbath" is asked for his New-Testa- 
ment authority, he has to exclude all the passages which contain 
that word, giving them a different application, and go to other 
passages which do not contain it ; and he argues that he seeks 
the thing, not the name. And, when we Episcopalians are ask- 
ed for inspired authority for "Bishops," we do the very same • 
we give a different application to the passages which' contain 
that w©rd, and build on other passages, which teach the fact of 
the existence of episcopacy, without that appellation. Thus 
secured by an example which is in high esteem with our oppo- 
nents generally, may we not hope that they will withhold their 
censure from this portion of our argument ? 

Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in regard to the 
word " Elder." It is sometimes used for a minister or clergyman 
of any grade, higher, middle, or lower ; f but it more strictly 
signifies a Presbyter. 6 Many words have both a loose and a 
specific meaning. The word « angel" is often applied loosely :* 
but distinctively it means certain created spirits. The word 
" God" is applied to angels, 1 and idols, k and human personages 
or magistrates ; ] but distinctively it means the Supreme Being. 
The word " Deacon" means an ordinary servant, a servant of 
God in secular affairs, and any minister of Christ ; but a Chris- 
tain minister of the lower grade is its specific meaning. m So 
with the word " Elder f it is sometimes applied to the clergy of 
any grade or grades ; but its appropriate application is to minis- 
ters of the second or middle order. The above remarks, it is 
hoped, will enable those who feel an interest in consulting Scrip- 
ture on the subject before us, to do so without any embarrass- 
ment from the apparent confusion of official names or titles. 

To this appeal to Scripture in regard to the question between 
episcopacy and parity, we now proceed. 

That the apostles ordained, all agree : that Elders (Presbyters) 
did, we deny. We open this branch of our argument with the 
remark, that— Apostles and Elders (distinctively so called) had 
not equal power and rights. And we demonstrate this proposi- 
tion from Scripture in the following manner.— These two classes 
of ministers are distinguished from each other in the passages 
which speak of them as " Apostles and Elders,"" or which enu- 
merate " Apostles and Elders and brethren," or the laity • If 
" priests and levites," if « Bishops and Deacons,"? are allowed 

f Apostles are called 'Elders' in 1 Pet v. 1. 2 John 1, and 3 John 1. Deacons 
are certainly included m that designation in 1 Tim. v. 19., and probably in Acts xiv. 
23. xxi. 18. and James v. 14. and possibly in Acts xi. 30. 

g Acts xv. 6, 23. Tit. i 5. Acts xx, 17. 1 Pet. v. 1. 

h Acts xii. 15. Rev i. 20. ix. 14. 

i Deut. x. 17. Ps. xcvii. 7. cxxxvi. 2. 

k Exod. xx. 3 xxiii. 24, &c. 

1 Exod. vii. 1. xxii. 28. Ps. Ixxxii. 1, 6. cxxxviii. 1. John x. 35. 

m See Parkhurst on Ata»covoj. n Acts xv. 2, 4, fi, 22 : xvi 4. 

o Acts xv. 23. P Philip LL T ' 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 15 

to be distinct orders, if " Apostles and brethren,"** are also allow- 
ed to be distinct orders, then on the same principle, that the con- 
junction is not exegetical, "Apostles and Elders" may fairly be 
accounted distinct orders likewise. And as, in the expression 
" Apostles and Elders and brethren," severalty is unquestionably 
implied between the latter of these three classes and the others, 
it must as clearly be intended between the former two. Apos- 
tles were therefore one class, and Elders another class, just as 
the laity were a third class. — Now, the Apostles were not thus 
distinguished because they were appointed by Christ personally; 
for some are named " Apostles" in Scripture who were not thus 
appointed, as Matthias, Barnabas, and probably James the bro- 
ther of the Lord, 1 " all ordained by merely human ordainers ; 
Silvanus also and Timothy are called " Apostles ;" s and, besides 
Andronicus and Junia, others could be added to the list. 1 Nor 
were the Apostles thus distinguished because they had seen our 
Lord after his resurrection; for "five hundred brethren" saw 
him. u And, though the twelve Apostles were selected as special 
witnesses of the resurrection, yet others received that appellation 
who were not thus selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, 
Junia, &c. Nor were the Apostles thus distinguished because 
of their power of working miracles ; for Stephen and Philip, 
who were both Deacons, are known to have had this power/ — 
It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the 
Apostles were distinguished from the Elders because they were 
superior to them in ministerial power and rights. w And, con- 
sidering the nature of inherent rights — that they cannot (except 
in the way of punitive discipline) be taken away or justly sus- 
pended, but are always valid — we do not allow that this superi- 
ority of the Apostles was but transient, that they kept full power 
from the Elders for a time, and conceded it to them afterwards. 
What is given in ordination, is given unreservedly : and, as it is 
never ; except for discipline) retracted, or suspended, or modified 



q Acts xi. 1. 

r Acts i. 26 ; xiv. 4, 14. Gal. i. 19. Compare the latter with Mark vi. 3, ana 
John vii. 5 ; and see Hammond on St. James' epistle, and Bishop White on tho 
Catechism, p. 431. 

s See 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with i. 1. Paul, Silvanus, (or Silas,) and 
Timothy, are all included as "Apostles." In verse 18, Paul speaks of himself indi- 
vidually, not probably before. It is not unusual, indeed, for St Paul to use the 
plural number of himself only ; but the words "Apostles" and "our own souls" 
(verse 8.) being inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number, show that the 
three whose names are at the head of this epistle, are here spoken of jointly. And 
thus, Silas and Timothy are, with Paul, recognized, in this passage of Scripture, as 
" Apostles." 

t It will here be sufficient to remark, that in 2 Cor. xi. 13, and Rev. ii. 2, " false 
Apostles" are spoken of. These could not have been, or have pretended to be, any 
of the eleven, or of the five next above mentioned, or Paul. Their assuming there- 
fore the title of 'Apostles' shows that there were enough others who had this title to 
make their pretended claim to it plausible. And those others must have been ordain- 
ed, not by Christ, but by men who had his commission. — Calvin allows An- 
dronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7.) to have been Apostles. Instit. b. IV. c. iii. sect, 5. 

u 1 Cor. xv. 6. v Acts vi. 8 ; viii. 6. w See note z, on page 12. 



16 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

by the giver or givers, and particularly, as in the case o* the 
first " Elders" there is no record, and no evidence whatever, of 
any public decree or private agreement relating to such a re- 
traction, or suspension, or modification, we cannot but regard 
that theory as mere hypothesis ; and against the taking for 
granted of any mere hypothesis, all sound reasoning protests. — 
We repeal, therefore, that the " Apostles and Elders" were of 
distinct orders ; as truly so, as were the " brethren" or laity a 
third class, different from both the others. 

If these views of Scripture and of the nature of inherent rights 
of office, be allowed, as we think they ought to be, then we have 
proved in favour of episcopacy, that there was originally a 
sacred office superior to that of " Elders" or Presbyters. And 
this is substantiating nearly the whole episcopal claim. 

But the defenders of parity reject these our views of Scripture 
and of official rights, and build their system on the theory which 
we have pronounced to be mere hypothesis. While they grant 
the superiority of the Apostles, they contend that the subordination 
of the Elders was but a transient regulation, required by the exi- 
gencies of the then new Church ; and that as churches became 
settled, the whole ministerial power rested in the Elders, no part 
of it being any longer withheld from them. The proof they 
allege is, that the " Elders" are said in the New Testament to 
have ordained and exercised full government and discipline. In 
answer we assert, 1. that there is no scriptural evidence that 
" Elders" ever obtained or exercised the right [or the complete 
right] of ordination ; but that, 2. there was continued, as had 
begun in the Apostles, an order of ministers superior to the 
Elders. Both these assertions we can prove. And under the 
latter head it will appear that Elders did not exercise discipline 
over the clergy. 

1. There is no scriptural evidence that mere Elders [Presby- 
ters | ordained. 

Excluding a few unavailing appeals to Scripture made by 
some of our opponents, but which we think will be allowed to 
have the effect of weakening their cause,* there are but two pas- 
sages which can even plausibly be claimed in favour of presby- 
terian ordination. Yet by neither of these passages can that 
practice be substantiated. 

The first is Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. Five persons called u prophets 
and teachers," at Antioch, among whom Barnabas is named first, 
and Saul last, are directed by the Holy Ghost, " separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the %oork whereunto I have called them ;" 
which the other three accordingly did, by fasting and pra}^er, 
and the imposition of hands, and then sent them away. This 
transaction is sometimes presumed to have been the ordination 
of Barnabas and Saul to the one sacred order of parity ; and as 
it was performed by those who were only " prophets and teach- 

x As the facts, that there was more than one ordainer in Acts i. 26. and xiv. 22L 
The answer is, that the ordainers were Apostles, not mere Presbyters. 



EPISGOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 17 

ers," it is claimed as a scriptural example of presbyterian ordi- 
nation. But this claim may be unanswerably refuted. 1. Bar- 
nabas and Saul are themselves here called " prophets and teach- 
ers," and are said to have " ministered to the Lord," as well as 
the other three ; of course, if these three were in orders, the 
other two were likewise, before this laying on of hands. This 
transaction, therefore, if an ordination, must have been a second 
and of course higher one ; which is inconsistent with parity. 
If it was not an ordination, as it certainly was not, it was a mere 
setting apart of those two Apostles to a particular field of duty, 
which has no bearing on the question before us. 2. Paul had 
been a preacher long before this occurrence/ and Barnabas 
also ; z which facts, together with that of their " ministering to 
the Lord," as already mentioned, are proof positive that they 
held the sacred commission before this laying on of hands : 
which of course, we repeat, must have been either a second and 
higher ordination, which is fatal to parity, or else no ordination, 
but only a separation to a particular field of duty, to a special 
" work." 3. That this transaction at Antioch related only to 
a special missionary w work," will be found sufficiently clear by 
those who will trace Paul and Barnabas through that work, from 
Acts xiii. 4. to xiv. 26. where its completion is recorded—" and 
thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recom- 
mended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled." 
This "work," their missionary tour, being "fulfilled," all was. 
fulfilled that had been required by the Holy Ghost when he had 
them "separated," or "recommended to the grace of God," 
" for the work to which he had called them." This call, there- 
fore, this separation, this work, related only to a particular mis- 
sion. And this laying on of hands was no ordination, but a 
lesser ceremony, which has no bearing on the controversy 
between parity and episcopacy. 4. The most explicit proof that 
this was not an ordination, is found in Gal. i. 1. where Paul de- 
clares himself to be " an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, 
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." Not of men, neither 
by man : is not such language an absolute exclusion of all human 
agency in Paul's ordination ? What other language could add 
to its strength? None but that which immediately follows : Ci 6y 
Jesus Christ and God the Father." Paul having been made an 
Apostle by the Saviour in person, when he appeared to him on the 
road to Damascus,* it could not have been that the transaction at 
Antioch was his ordination. b — And if in his case that ceremony 

• y Acts ix. 20—22, 27—29. z Acts xi.. 23, 2&. a Acts xxvi. 16, 17, IS. 

J b The following additional proofs are worthy of notice. 1. In Rom. i. 5. 1 Cor. 
i. 17. and 1 Tim. i„ I. Paul asserts that his apostolical commission was from Christ. 
2. In the first verses respectively of 1 Cor. 2 Cor. Ephes. Col. and 2 Tim. he de- 
clares himself an Apostle "through" or "by the will of God." 3. In Gal. i. 17. 
speaking of the period " immediately" after his conversion, he says that he went not 
to those who " were Apostles before him ;" of course he regarded himself as an 
Apostle at that period, and from the moment that Christ had appeared to him. 
4. In 1 Tim. ii. 7. he asserts his apostleship with a strong asseveration-—" whe r e- 

2* 



18 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

meant not ordination, it of course meant it not in the case of 
Barnabas. When the latter had been made an Apostle, we know 
not ; neither do we know when James the brother of the Lord, 
Silvanus, Timothy, &c. were admitted to that office. 

This first claim to Scripture in behalf of presbyterian ordina- 
tion cannot therefore be substantiated ; inasmuch as an act of 
ordination is not, and cannot be implied in the passage appealed 
to. Should any tnink otherwise, they must not only refute the 
above arguments, but make it appear also from Scripture that 
the supposed ordainers were mere Presbyters ; for the appella- 
tions " prophets and teachers" are far from settling this point. 
If Barnabas and Paul, to whom those titles are given, are to be 
regarded as laymen about to be ordained, why not regard the 
other three as" laymen also, holding a lay ordination? the one 
may as well be taken for granted as the other; for we read 
that laymen and even lay- women "prophesied" in the age of 
inspiration, Or if the three supposed ordainers called "prophets 
and teachers" were clergymen, they may have been Apostles, 
superior to Elders, since Silas is called both a " prophet" and 
an " Apostle" d and the prophets are called the " brethren" of the 
Apostle John; e the Apostle Paul calls himself a " teacher." f Be- 
sides ; it has been shown that Paul, here classed with " prophets 
and teachers," was also at this time an Apostle ; and does not this 
fact afford presumptive argument that the other four whose 
names stand above his in the list contained in the passage, were 
also of apostolic rank? In view of these many difficulties, we 
may securely affirm, that it is impossible to bring any evidence 
whatever that this transaction at Antioch was an ordination by 
Presbyters. We have, indeed, shown that it was not an ordina- 
tion of any kind. And we therefore dismiss the claim of non- 
episcopalians to this passage of the New Testament. 

Only one other passage is claimed for presbyterian ordination 
— " neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 
(1 Tim. iv. 14.) This is regarded by our non-episcopal brethren 
as the record of a presbyterian ordination. Let us inquire, how- 
ever, whether the transaction was an ordination ? and whether, 
if so, it was a presbyterian ordination ? 

Was the laying on of hands on Timothy here mentioned, an 

unto I am ordained a preacher and an Apostle, (J speak the truth in Christ and 
lie not,) &c." Had his ordination been performed by men, it would have been well 
known, as in ordinary cases ; had it been performed, as alleged, at Antioch, it would 
have had peculiar publicity, and such a mode of asserting it would have been out ol 
place and even improper in St. Paul. But his commission having been given him 
by Christ personally, and the men present at the time not understanding the words 
then pronounced, (Acts xxii. 9.) it was both natural and correct, in declaring that he 
was thus commissioned, to use solemn asseverations and pledge his veracity. This 
was enough for ordinary purposes. The final proof of his declaration and his asseve- 
rations was the performance of miracles. 

e 1 Cor. xi. 5. Acts xix. 6. and xxi. 9. 

d Acts xv. 32. I Thess. ii. 6. comp. with i. 1. 

e Rev. xxii. 9. f 1 Tim. ii. 7. 2 Tim. i. 1 U 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 19 

ordination ? It cannot, at least, be proved. And, comparing 
Scripture with Scripture, are we not justified in regarding 
it as a transaction similar to the one we have just seen in the 
case of Barnabas and Saul? In both cases there was the 
ceremony of the imposition of hands. And the dictation of the 
Holy Ghost to the " prophets" in the one case, corresponds with 
the " prophecy," or inspired designation of the individual in the 
other case ; a designation previously adverted to by St. Paul, 
" this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the 
prophecies which went before on thee." g We submit this view 
of the transaction performed by those called the " presbytery" to 
the candid judgment of our readers. If they should allow that 
it probably refers to an inspired separation, of one already in 
the ministry, to a particular field of duty — to the " charge com- 
mitted to him" in form by St. Paul, corresponding with " the 
work" to which Saul and Barnabas were separated — a practice 
which must of course have ceased with the gift of inspiration — 
they will see that it was not an ordination that was performed 
by the " presbytery," but only a " recommending of Timothy 
to the grace of God for the work he was to fulfil." The ordina- 
tion of Timothy may be alluded to by St. Paul in the second 
epistle, " the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of 
my hands." h If so, it was an ©rdination by an Apostle, as is the 
uniform record elsewhere in the New Testament. If not, 
then Timothy's ordination is nowhere specifically mentioned, 
but is to be inferred, as in other cases : and, in this view, both 
these passages are unconnected with the controversy before us. 

But our non-episcopal brethren generally regard the passage 
in question as referring to the ordination of Timothy. Let us 
meet them on this ground. 

Was it a presbyterian ordination ? We first reply, that emi- 
nent authority has declared the word " presbytery" to mean the 
office to which Timothy was ordained, not the persons who 
ordained him ; so that the passage would read — " with the lay- 
ing on of hands to confer the presbyterate" or presbytership, 
or the clerical office : in which view, the ordainer of Timothy 
was St. Paul himself, as mentioned in the clause just quoted 
from the second epistle. On this point, we adduce a passage 
from Grotius, Speaking of Presbyters laying on their hands 
near those of a Bishop, he proceeds — " I do not dare to bring in 
confirmation of this, that expression of Paul's of the imposition 
of the hands of the presbytery, because I see that Jerome, Am- 
brose, and other ancients, and Calvin, certainly the chief of all 
the moderns, interpret ^ presbyter ium? in that place not an assem- 
bly ', but the office to which Timothy was promoted : and indeed 
he who is conversant with the councils and the writings of the 
fathers, cannot be ignorant that' presbyterium^ as ' episcopatus* 
and c diaconatus' are the names of offices. Add that it appears 



g 1 Tim. i. IS. See also M'Knicht's note on the passage. h 2 Tim. i. 6. 



20 EPISCOPACY TESTED By SCRIPTURE. 

that Paul laid hands on Timothy." 1 By this interpretation of 
the word " presbytery"— thatit means not the ordainers, but the 
office conferred — we remove all appearance of discrepancy be- 
tween that passage and the one in which Paul speaks of the im- 
position of his hands. And, to make the least of the above opinion 
of several fathers, and Calvin, and Grotius, does not their au- 
thority render doubtful the application of the passage before us 
to a body of presbyterian ordainers ■?■— Should it be said, however, 
that the word " presbyterate or presbyter ship" proves Timothy 
to have been then ordained a Presbyter merely, we would neu- 
tralize that argument by appealing to 1 Thess. ii. 6, (comp. with 
i. 1.) where he is called an "Apostle." We would also advert 
to the fact, that however distinct may have been the three above 
Latin names for the three grades of sacerdotal office, those names 
of office were, in the Greek, and at an earlier period, applied 
but loosely. At least, they were so in the New Testament. 
Thus we read, cc this ministry [deaconship] and apostleship"* 
for the office to which Matthias was admitted : " I am the apos- 
tle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" [my deaconship,] 
" the ministry [deaconship] which I have received," " approving 
ourselves as the ministers [deacons'] of God," 1 are passages 
applied by St. Paul to himself ; we also read, " who then is Paul, 
and who is Apollos, but ministers [deacons] by whom ye be- 
lieved ;" m and " do the work of an evangelist, make full prool 
of thy ministry" [deaconship,] " thou shalt be a good minister 
| deacon] of Jesus Christ," are admonitions addressed to Timo- 
thy." These passages, not to cite here other like ones, w r hile 
they may be said to go far towards proving that if there be only 
one sacred order, it must be the order of Deacons, answer irre- 
fragably all that might be suggested to the disadvantage of 
episcopacy from the application of the word " presbytery" to 
the sacred office to which Timothy was ordained : since, if pres- 
byterate or presbytership means that he was but a Presbyter, 
deaconship must mean that he, and Matthias^ and Paul, and 
Apollos, were but Deacons. In short, as all experienced inter- 
preters are aware, and as in this controversy Episcopalians 
always assert, we look not to Scripture for official names of any 
kind, but only for official poioers ; and Timothy, we there find, 
has a higher degree of power than the w r ord Presbyterium, as 
distinguished from Episcopatus and Diaconatus, would allow 
him. The word " presbytery" then, according to the mode oi 
interpretation now before us, though it refer to office, does not 
designate a subdivision of office, but alludes generally to the 
clerical office conferred on Timothy. 

But, granting to our opponents that "the presbytery" means 
here, not the office given to Timothy, but, as they contend, a 
body of Elders, and that his prdination is the transaction referred 

i See Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 192. [363. 2d ed. | k Acts i. 25. 

1 Rom. xi. 13. Acts xx. 24. 2 Cor. vi 4, m 1 Cor. iii. h, 

n 2 Tim. iv. 5. 1 Tim. iv. & 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 21 

to — we again meet them on the question, was it a presbyterian 
ordination ? And here we ask — of w T hom was this ordaining 
w presbytery" composed ? for the whole question centres in the 
meaning of that word. A presbytery means a body of Elders ; 
and taken alone, it can be interpreted of any kind of Elders. 
Those, for example, who think they find in Scripture what are 
called ruling-elders, may regard this presbytery as having been 
made up of them; and, if they were not contradicted by other 
passages they might here claim a shadow of proof for lay-orders. 
Others may assert that the grade called Presbyters made up 
this presbytery. Or, as St. Peter and St. John call themselves 
" Elders," this presbytery may have consisted of Apostles. Or, 
lastly, it may have been composed of any two of the kinds 
of Elders mentioned, or of ail the three kinds uniting in the 
imposition of hands on Timothy ; there may have been ruling- 
elders and Presbyters, or Presbyters and one or more Apos- 
tles, or ruling-elders and one or more Apostles, or ruling- 
elders and Presbyters and Apostles. There are then no les3 
than seven modes, if we seek no further evidence, in which this 
"presbytery" may have been composed. Or, if we exclude 
ruling-elders, there are three modes in which it may have been 
formed ; of Presbyters only, of Apostles only, and of one or 
more Apostles and Presbyters united. The mere expression 
" presbytery" therefore, does not explain itself, and cannot of 
itself be adduced in favour of parity. 

If, however, it be urged, that the specific meaning of the word 
" Elder" should have the - preference, so as to place Presbyters 
only in this ordaining " presbytery," we answer — that the spe- 
cific meaning of the title of an individual officer is far from 
extending necessarily to the similar title of a body or an office. 
We have just noticed an objection kindred with this ; but it may 
not be improper to add some further illustrations of the uncer- 
tainty of official names. Thus we say, the Jewish " priesthood," 
including in that term, with the priests, the superior order of 
high-priests, and the inferior one of levites. Thus also we have 
the phrases, " ministry [literally deaconship] of reconciliation," 
and the expressions "that the ministry [deaconship] be not 
blamed," " seeing we have this ministry" [deaconship,] " putting 
me into the ministry" [deaconship ;] and more especially 
" Apostles, prophets, evangelists," &c. are all said to have been 
given "for the work of the ministry" [deaconship;]? in all 
which passages the word deaconship, haKovia, the appellation 
strictly of a sacred body of men, or of their office, includes, nay 
signifies chiefly, those who were superior to Deacons. The 
word "presbytery" therefore, being no more definite than 
" ministry or deaconship," cannot explain itself m favour of our 
opponents. It can only be defined " a body of clergymen."* 

o 1 Pet. v. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. 

p 2 Cor. v. 18. vi. 3. iv. 1. 1 Tim. i. 12. Ephes. iv. 11, 12. 

q The word " presbyterate or presbytership" also means, as just shown, nothing 



22 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

And these clergymen may have been in part or entirely Apos- 
tles, who were superior to Presbyters. 

It is evident, therefore, we repeat, that this passage, if it refer 
to an ordination, cannot be interpreted without light from other 
Scriptures. To this light, therefore, we refer. 

The " presbytery," we have seen, may have consisted of 
Apostles only, or of one or more Apostles joined with others. 
In conformity with this suggestion, we find St. Paul writing to 
Timothy, " that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by 
the putting on of my hands." 1 " Now, the same reasons which 
make the passage respecting the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery apply to ordination — the same reasons will make 
this other passage, respecting the putting on of PauVs hands, 
apply to that identical ceremony ; unless indeed a second and 
higher ordination be here supposed, which however destroys 
parity, and which of course parity cannot adduce in its own 
behalf. In the ordination, therefore, of Timothy, Paul had at 
least a share ; that Apostle laid on his hands, whoever else be- 
longed to the ordaining " presbytery." It cannot of course be 
claimed as a presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. And 
thus the allegations of our opponents from this passage, in sup- 
port of the ordaining powers of mere " Elders," are overturned. 
We have proved that Presbyters alone did not perform the ordi- 
nation, granting the transaction to have been one, but that an 
Apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, 
to the body called a " presbytery." 8 

It is worthy also of note, that St. Paul makes the following 
distinction in regard to his own agency and that of the others 
in this supposed ordination — " by the putting on of my hands"— 
"with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Such a dis- 
tinction may justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue 
of the ordaining act flowed from Paul ; while the presbytery, 
or the rest of that body if he were included in it, expressed only 
consent. 

On the whole : Can it be denied, that a cautious and eandid 
interpretation of the two passages said- to relate to the ordina- 
tion of Timothy, requires that a minister be present who holds 
the [ordinary and uninspired portion of the] rank and rights of 
an Apostle, to give ordaining power to any body called a pres- 
bytery ? Were there even no explicit evidence in our favour in 
the other parts of Scripture, the episcopal theory would be at 
least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word 

more specific than " the clerical office." The word " bishopric" (Acts i. 20.) has, 
on the same principles, no stricter signification. The present writer is not aware 
of any instance in Scripture in which the specific meaning of a name of office has 
necessarily the preference; perhaps the word ^apostleship" is an exception; it is 
used only of those known to have been Apostles. 

r 2 Tim. i. 6. 

s Ignatius, well known for his zeal for episcopacy, and martyred about the yea? 
110, calls the Apostles the " presbytery of the Church." Epist. to the Philadeb 
phians, Sect. 5. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 23 

"presbytery." And considering the above distinction of " by'' 
and " with," our theory is obviously the better of the two. Yet 
here the non-episcopal argument from Scripture is exhausted. 
Its strongest proof has been demonstrated to be but barely con- 
sistent with parity, while it is more consistent with episcopacy. 
We dismiss therefore the claim of our opponents to this, the 
only passage of Scripture, besides the one before dismissed, to 
which they could raise any pretensions. 

Let our readers now be reminded, that we before showed 
"Apostles and Elders" to have been distinct classes of ministers, 
as distinct as were the " brethren" or laity from both. That the 
former ordained, is allowed on all hands, and is clear from Scrip- 
ture. 1 But we have now demonstrated that there is no inspired 
authority for the claim that mere Elders [Presbyters] ordained — 
none, at any period of the apostolic age. Of course, there is no 
scriptural proof that such Elders have the right to ordain. To ad- 
duce evidence of their enjoying such a right, was incumbent on 
parity ; but having failed to do so, it cannot ask of us to allow such 
a right without evidence. It cannot be proved, and it is not to 
be allowed without proof, that mere Presbyters either performed 
the ordinations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to 
have the right to perform such acts. This position cannot be 
overturned. 

2. All that is now incumbent on episcopacy is— to show that 
the above distinction between Elders and a grade superior to them, 
in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so perse- 
vered in as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement, 
and not designed to be but temporary To this final branch of 
our argument, which is also an independent and very prominent 
argument for episcopacy, we now proceed. 

Let any one read Acts xx. 28 to 35, and consider well what St. 
Paul there gives as a charge to the Etders (Presbyters or Pres- 
byter-bishops) of Ephesus. Then let him read the two epistles to 
Timothy, and reflect candidly on the charge which the same 
Apostle gives to him personally, Timothy at Ephesus. And, 
after this comparison of the charges, let him decide whether 
Scripture does not set that one individual above those Elders, 
in ecclesiastical rights, and particularly in regard to the power 
of ordaining. — Or, if such an inquirer feel any doubt as to the 
positiveness with which the superiority of Timothy is asserted, 
let him conscientiously determine what are the intimations ol 
Scripture on this subject — which way the balance of proof in- 
clines. To us the proof seems absolute ; but it is enough for 
a rightly disposed mind that it only preponderate. Examine 
then, these two portions of the New Testament ; and first, that 
relating to the Elders. 

In Acts xx. 28, &c. the Elders of Ephesus are charged—to 
take heed to themselves— to take heed to all the flock over which 



t Acts i. 26. vi. 6. xiv. 23. 2 Tim. i. 6. 



24 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

the Holy Ghost had made them overseers — to feed the Church 
of God — and, remembering the Apostle's warnings for three 
years, to watch against the grievous wolves that would assail 
the flock, and against those from among themselves who would 
speak perverse things. These are the four points (or three, if 
the second and third be united) of the admonition left with them 
by St. Paul ; to which another may be added, from verse 35, 
concerning industry, and charity to the " weak." Now, what 
is there in this admonition or charge which shows that these 
Elders had the power of clerical dicipline ? surely nothing. 
They are to be cautious themselves, and to watch against false 
teachers ; but no power is intimated to depose from office 
either one of their own number, or an unsound minister coming 
among them. They are to " feed," or perhaps (as the word is 
sometimes translated) rule* the Church ; i. e. they are to " tend 
it as shepherds. 55 * The " Church 55 of course means here the 
" flock 55 before mentioned, or the laity ; w for shepherds do not 
tend or rule shepherds, unless it be that there are superior 
shepherds among them, who have received such authority from 
their common master or employer. Government of the clergy, 
therefore, these Elders had not, as far as appears, within their 
own body. And not a trace or hint is there of their having had 
the right to ordain. 

We may here add, that the right of these Elders to govern 
and ordain cannot be claimed as resulting from construction or 
implication; for every passage in Scripture which asserts or 
intimates power over the clergy, gives that power to Apostles, 
or else to Timothy and Titus, or to the " angels 55 of the seven 
Churches in Asia ; and these cannot be proved to have been 
mere Presbyters, but wre, as we have shown in regard to the 
Apostles, and are now showing in regard to the rest, distinct 
and superior officers. Constructive or implied powers can only 
be inferred in the absence of positive evidence ; and as there is 
positive evidence in other passages, nothing of implication can 
be valid here. The positive evidence is against parity 5 nor can 
construction be resorted to for its relief. — Nor is a resort to such 
construction suggested by the spirit of PauPs address to these 
Elders, since the theory which asks no construction is quite as 
congenial with its several expressions as that which requires it. 
On the episcopal theory, indeed, there can be no final authority 
over the clergy without a Bishop ; but it is not contrary to that 
theory, that Presbyters, in such a case, exercise much spiritual 
discipline over the laity : they may repel from the communion, 
which is a. very high act of "ruling; 55 and, there being no 
Bishop, there can be no appeal from such a sentence. Among 
us, a diocese without a Bishop " rules the flock 55 in many respects, 

a See Note B. 

v See Parkhurst on roifiaivu). 

w As in Acts xv. 4, 22. It is simply possible that Deacons are included in such 
oassages. 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 25 

but has no final or executive authority over its clergy; and 
Ephesus was without a Bishop when Paul addressed the Elders, 
Timothy not having been placed over that Church till some time 
afterwards.* As therefore the episcopal theory suits this address 
perfectly, without a resort to constructive or implied powers, 
such a resort in behalf of the Elders is unnecessary, is gratuitous, 
and, of course, is an unsound mode of interpretation. 

The functions then of the Elders of Ephesus, as developed in 
Acts xx. were only pastoral ; they were to feed, tend, rule, the 
flock, and take heed to them, and, watching for them, were to 
warn them against false teachers. As St. Paul elsewhere expresses 
the duty of Bishops, (Presbyter-bishops,) they are to " take care 
of the Church of God ?* the " Church" meaning of course the 
laity, as just observed in regard to Acts xx. 28. Or, as St. Peter 
expresses that duty, they are to "take the oversight" of the 
"flock" which they " feed." z These, we believe, are all the 
rights named in Scripture as belonging to Elders. Whatever 
higher privileges are there specified or adverted to (except the 
bare possibility of their having been united with Paul in the 
" presbytery" which is supposed to have ordained Timothy) 
are invariably ascribed to Apostles, or to the other persons 
before mentioned, as Timothy, Titus, and the "angels" of the 
seven Churches. 

Compare now with this sum total of power assigned in Scrip- 
ture to mere Elders or Presbyters, that of Timothy at Ephesus, 
the very city and region in which those addressed by Paul in 
Acts xx. resided and ministered. Look through the two epistles 
addressed to that individual by the great Apostle, and mark the 
explicit manner in which the right of governing :he clergy and 
of ordaining is ascribed to him personally — every part of both 
epistles being addressed to him in the singular number— "this 
charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy" — " these things write 
I unto thee, that tliov, mightest know how to behave thyself in 
the house of God" — " if thou put the brethren in remembrance 
of these things."* Observe the same address to him in the sin- 
gular number when clerical government and discipline are spo- 
ken of — " that thou mightest charge some that they teach no 
other (no false) doctrine" — " against an Elder receive not \thoii\ 
an accusation, but before two or three witnesses" — " them [those 
of the Elders thus accused] that sin, rebuke [thou~\ before all, 
that others also may fear" — " I charge thee .... that thou 
observe these things [these rules of clerical discipline, &c] 
without preferring one before another, doing nothing by par- 
tiality." b Observe particularly his right to ordain — the qualifi- 
cations of Bishops (Presbyter-bishops) and Deacons are ad- 



x The date of, the placing of Timothy at Ephesus is discussed m M'Knight on 
the Epintles, Vol. IV. p. 156 ; in the Church Register for 1827, Nos. 13 to 17; and 
in the Protestant Episcopalian for May, 1831. y 1 Tim. iii. 5. 

z 1 Pvt. v. 2. a 1 Tim. i. IS ; iii. 14, 15 j iv. G. b 1 Tim. i. 3 ; r. 19, 20, 2L 

3 



26 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

dressed to him, " these things write I unto thee" c — he is after- 
wards admonished, in regard to the ordaining of these two infe- 
rior orders, " lay \thou~\ hands suddenly on no man" — and again, 
" the things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou 
to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," d i. e. to 
men who are both sound in the faith and apt to teach. Observe, 
moreover, that, while to the Elders of Ephesus Paul alludes to 
ministers who would " speak perverse things " e yet gives not a 
hint of their exercising discipline upon such offenders, to Timo- 
thy he mentions that very error, and in terms entirely equiva- 
lent, as having occurred at Ephesus, calling it the " teaching of 
other or false doctrine" and desires him to check it — " that 
thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine" — ■ 
and it is afterwards added, respecting the clergy who thus or 
otherwise were in fault, " them that sin, rebuke thou. m Teach- 
ing " other doctrine" and speaking " perverse things" are one 
and the same offence ; the correction of it is no where commit- 
ted to the Elders ; to Timothy it is here expressly committed. 

Is it not evident, abundantly evident, that Timothy had su- 
preme power over the clergy at Ephesus, and the full right to 
ordain 1 Comparing these many passages, and the tenor and 
spirit of the entire epistles, with the before cited address to the 
Elders of Ephesus, can any one require stronger proof of epis- 
copacy, or stronger disproof of parity ? Did not the ministry at 
Ephesus consist of three orders — Timothy first, the Elders (or 
Presbyter-bishops) next, and Deacons last ? — it clearly did. 

Compare again that address, and all that is recorded of mere 
Elders, with the epistle to Titus. Examine his powers in the 
island of Crete. To him are specified the due qualifications of a 
Presbyter-bishop or Elder/ His clear credential from the 
Apostle Paul is, " for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou 
shouldest set m order the things that are wanting, and [that 
thou shouldest] ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed 
thee" — and again, " a man that is an heretic, after the first and 
second admonition, [do thou] reject:" 11 ordination, admonition, 
and rejection, (or degradation and excommunication,) are all 
committed to Titus personally. The Elders, as already seen, 
had no power given them to " reject" those who should " speak 
perverse things" or " heresy ;" Titus had that power. 1 All this 
agrees perfectly with the case of Timothy. And nothing like 
it can be shown, any where in Scripture, of any who are there 
distinctively called Elders or Presbyters. Is it not clear, then, 
that the recorded powers of Titus make him an officer of a grade 
superior to that which we must assign, resting only on the sa- 
cred record, to such Elders ? This is episcopacy. 



c 1 Tim. iii. 1—14. d 1 Tim. v. 22. 2 Tim. ii. 2. e Acts xx. 30. 

f 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 20. g Tit, i. 6—9 h Tit i. 5 ; iii. 10. 

i The expression "perverse things," the teachers of which the Elders had no 
power to condemn, agrees with that used respecting the heretic, "such is subverted," 
whom Titus had power to reject. The words are, Suarpapntva and e^tarpavTai, 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 27 

Compare, yet again, all that is recorded of Elders, with the 
epistles to the " angels" of the seven Churches of Asia. k Each 
oLthose Churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, 
but through its " angel" or chief officer ; this alone is a very 
strong argument against parity and in favour of episcopacy. 
One of those Churches was Ephesus ; and when we read con- 
cerning its angel, " thou hast tried them which say they are 
Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars," 1 do we require 
further evidence that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was 
in the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of discipline over 
the clergy, the same was its chief officer when this book was 
written, in the year 96 ? Let us examine also other passages. 
In each of these small epistles, the " angel" is made responsible 
individually for the errors of the respective Churches, and is 
commended individually for their respective merits ; and this, 
although there must have been several or many Elders in each 
of those Churches, as there were in Ephesus thirty or forty years 
before. 111 Observe the emphatic use of the singular number in 
the address to each of the angels — " I know thy work^" n is the 
clear and strong language directed to them all successively, im- 
plying the responsibility, not of a Church at large, or of its cler- 
gy at large, but of the head or governor individually. To the 
same effect w r e read, as commendations of these angels — " thou 
holdest fast my name" — " thou hast a lew names which have not 
defiled their garments" — " I have set before thee an open door" — 
" thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word" — and, on 
the other hand, they are thus rebuked — " I have a few things 
against thee" — " because thou hast them that hold the doctrine 
of Balaam" — " thou sufferest that woman Jezebel ... to teach, 
&c." — " if thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief" 
— "thou art neither hot nor cold."p Similar to these are the 
warnings of Christ to these " angels," all implying their indi- 
vidual responsibility for the faults of the Churches, — " remember 
tthou] from whence thou art fallen, and repent [thou] and do 
thou] the first works" — " repent [thou] or else I will come unto 
thee quickly" — " be [thou] watchful, and strengthen [thou] the 
things which remain" — " hold [thou] fast that which thou hast" 
— " be [thou] zealous, and repent [thou] /•« There are other like 
passages ; indeed these seven epistles are nearly made up of 
them. The individual called " the angel" is, in each case, iden- 
tified with his Church, and his Church with him. And in the 
few places where the language addressed to the Churches by the 
Saviour is in the plural number, 1, it is addressed to them gene- 
rally, no particular reference being made to their Elders, as if 
they shared the responsibility. 8 On the contrary, we find this 

k Rev. ii. Hi. 1 Rev. ii. 2. 

m Acts xx. 17. n Rev. ii. 2, 9, 13, 19; iii. 1, 8, 15. 

Rev. ii. 13; iii. 4, 8. p Rev. ii. 14, 20; iii. 3, 15. 

q Rev. ii. 5, 16; iii. 2, 11, 19. r Rev. ii. 10,23—25. 

s See Note C 



28 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

peculiarly strong expression in the admonition to the angel of 
the Ephesian Church, where, as has been fully shown, there 
were'many Elders or Presbyters, "I will remove thy candlestick 
[thy Church] out of his place, except thou repent m —not the 
Church of the presbytery, nor even of thy presbytery, but " thy 
Church." Surely a diocesan is here ! 

Test then by these seven epistles, by each of them and all of 
them, the episcopal and presbyterian theories, and see which 
best agrees with their letter and their spirit: most assuredly 
they are episcopacy from beginning to end. Connect these epis- 
tles with those to Timothy and Titus ; and decide whether they 
do not all proclaim episcopacy. Compare this entire connected 
evidence with all that is recorded concerning the powers of mere 
Elders ; and let the spirit of candour and impartiality determine 
whether episcopacy does not even triumph in the abundance of 
its scriptural proofs. 

And let it be observed, that we have made no use of those 
scriptures which merely agree with episcopacy, or tend to illus- 
trate th»affairs of the apostolic Church according to that theory, 
but only of those which are its demonstration. And this, we 
think, is complete. 

All minds, however, do not appreciate evidence equally. Let 
then our argument be rated at its lowest value, and it will still 
be sufficient, Is there any thing like positive proof in Scripture, 
that mere Elders [or Presbyter-bishops] had the power of su- 
preme discipline over the clergy, or ordained without the co- 
operation of a minister of higher authority 1 there certainly is 
not, as we have fully shown. Is there not, however, in Scrip- 
ture, proof absolutely positive that persons of higher authority 
than Elders did ordain, and did possess the supreme right of 
clerical discipline ? there certainly is, as we have most abun- 
dantly demonstrated. Is there not, moreover, positive scriptural 
proof that these high powers, superior to those ascribed to mere 
Elders, existed in other individuals than the original Apostles, 
and continued in the possession of such officers to the latest date 
of the inspired volume ? it cannot be reasonably questioned. 
Now, let the reader • stimate all this evidence as low as he 
pleases, it is evidence enough for episcopacy. A hint concern- 
ing the will of God should be imperative with every humble 
and conscientious believer. The slightest preponderance of 
proof, when all has been investigated, should be sufficient for a 
candid mind. — Let then such considerations have their due 
weight with those who may think that our argument comes 
short of demonstration. 

We are persuaded, however, that to strict and severe reasoners 
it will appear a very close approximation to demonstrative proof. 



t Rev. ii. 5. In Rev. i. 20, the candlesticks are said to be the Churches. 
u For further remarks on the permanent obligation of episcopacy, see Note D 
And concerning the plea of necessity for departing from that ministry, see Note E 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 29 

Of such reasoners we ask — can a single step be made in apply- 
ing Scripture to the support of parity, without taking something 
for granted V if there be an argument for parity free from this 
objection, the present writer does not recollect to have seen it, 
- On the other hand, is not the scriptural argument for episcopacy 
a regular induction from scriptural facts? we are persuaded 
that no impartial mind will answer in the negative. 

We assert, therefore, in conclusion, that the episcopal ministry 
alone has the authority of the inspired writers. All the facts, 
all the examples they record, without one clear exception, show 
that such was the ministry of the apostolic age. We therefore 
now add this other assertion — that such was the ministry alluded 
to by the Apostle when he wrote, " remember them which have 
the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, 
.... obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your- 
selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give ac- 
count."* Whether such an injunction, taken in connexion with 
what has been proved in this essay, does not amount to an in- 
spired command to conform to the episcopal ministry, is left, 
with prayer for their right direction and decision, to the con 
sciences respectively of our readers^ 



POSTSCRIPT. 

On the plea of Parity— that Timothy acted as an "Evangelist." 

Parity alleges that Timothy exercised supreme authority in 
the Church at Ephesus as an " Evangelist ;" a and that that office, 
like (on their theory) the entire apostolic supremacy, was but 
temporary ; and that thus, in a short period, the whole clerical 
power rested in the one grade of Elders or Presbyters. 

To this allegation, in all its parts, we have several conclusive 
answers. — L Timothy is called an " Apostle" b as well as an 
" evangelist ;* and as he thus had the highest ecclesiastical 
power in virtue of the apostolic office, the appellation "evangel- 
ist" could add nothing to it. Neither, of course, can any infer- 
ence bearing on the episcopal controversy be drawn from that 
appellation. — 2. It does not appear that evangelists had, as such, 
any particular rank in the ministry. Philip, the Deacon, was 
an " evangelist ;" c in Ephes. iv. 11. "evangelists are put after 
" prophets 5" in I Cor. xik 28. they are not included at all 5 i* 

v See Note P. 

w Hek xiii. 7, 17. See also Note G. for a refutation of the objection, that monarchy 
fiae as good scriptural authority as episcopacy. 

a See 2 Tim. iv. 5. b 1 Thess. ii. 6., compared with i. 1. c Acts xxi. 8. 

3* 



30 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

appears also that some of the laity did the work of evangelizing « d 
and yet Timothy, an Apostle, is directed, we see, to do the same 
work. To rely therefore on the mere title "evangelist" in proof 
of any thing which is to affect our controversy, is futile ; no 
argument can be built upon it without taking for granted that 
evangelists had, as such, these high clerical powers, which is 
the very allegation in dispute. — 3. There is no proof ivhatever 
that Titus and the " angels" of the seven Churches were evan- 
gelists. If, therefore, we should surrender the case of Timothy, 
these other cases of supreme ecclesiastical authority would still 
contradict parity, and be evidence for episcopacy. ' Sound rea- 
soning, however, will rather yield up the claims founded on 
the application to Timothy of the mere title " evangelist ;" it 
would rather retain the case of Timothy for the episcopal cause, 
independently of other considerations, from its perfect analogy 
with these cases, which obviously and unavoidably belong to 
that cause. — 4. If we should allow that the superior rights oi 
the Apostles and of this evangelist came soon to a close, there 
would yet be no evidence (or no clear evidence) that mere 
Elders either had or acquired the power of ordaining and of 
executive clerical discipline. We should but find that the Church 
was left without an order of men who could show positive in- 
spired credentials for exercising these high functions. And this 
demonstratio ex absurdo is of itself almost sufficient for episco- 
pacy. The superior office of the Apostles, and of Timothy, 
Titus, and the seven " angels," must have been intended to be 
permanent, whatever was the name of that office, and however 
its name might be changed. For, be it not forgotten, that, as it 
cannot be proved, it ought not to be allowed, that any but those 
who held this apostolical or episcopal office, superior to that of 
mere Presbyters, either performed the ordinations mentioned in 
Scripture, or are there said to have the right to perform such 
acts. 

No certain and precise definition can be found for the word 
" evangelist," as used in Scripture ; the mere name decides 
nothing more than it would in the more thoroughly English 
form gospeller. Etymologically, its only meaning is " a per- 
son occupied with or devoted to the gospel 3" and as the gos- 
pel means the " good message," the idea contained in the 
latter word may be extended to " evangelist," and that title be 
defined " a messenger of the good message," i, e. one who pro- 
claims the gospel. Applied in this sense to a minister, it seems 
equivalent to the word preacher; it may also mean, but not 

d Acts viii. 4. and xi. 19, 20. ; see the Greek. In Acts viii. 1. the "church" at 
Jerusalem is said to-be scattered abroad ; the Apostles are excepted ; with that ex* 
ception "they were all scattered," saith the passage; meaning, doubtless, that so 
many fled as to break up their assemblies ,• of course, the scattering applies to the 
laity chiefly, and Sume of these are thus, we think, included among those who were 
engaged in " evangelizing." The word "preach" in these passages is of course, in 
this view, used by our translators with some latitude ; as will also be seen on exam- 
ining the Greek — XaXew and tvayythitjid being the words thus translated. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 31 

necessarily, a spreader of the gospel, a missionary ; and mis- 
sionaries, we know, may be either Bishops, Presbyters, or Dea- 
cons, either of the three orders. Yet in none of the three places 
in Scripture where the word " evangelist" occurs e are missiona- 
ry duties even hinted at. The epistles to Timothy require of 
him nothing of the kind ; and the immediate context of the verse 
containing that word charges him only to " preach the word, to 
be instant in season, out of season, to reprove, rebuke, exhort to 
sound doctrine, watch, and endure afflictions." It is not to be 
presumed then from Scripture that an evangelist was necessarily 
a missionary/ Nor was the Church at Ephesus new enough to 
require Timothy as its evangelist in the missionary sense ; for 
it must have been eleven years founded when Timothy is, for 
the first and only time, called by that title. — Etymology and 
Scripture then, the only proper authorities in our present ar- 
gument, both leave the meaning of the word " evangelist" 
uncertain. 

And if we consent to appeal to the fathers, to which our 
opponents would lead us for further light concerning " evan- 
gelists," we shall not only gain, from their abundant general 
testimony in favour of episcopacy, infinitely more than we could 
possibly lose by having this word defined by them against us, 
out we shall actually have their authority respecting that w r ord 
in our favour. A commonly received definition, founded on an 
imperfect extract from one of the fathers, Eusebius, is merely 
this — an evangelist was appointed" to lay the foundations of the 
laith in barbarous nations, to constitute them pastors, and hav- 
ing committed to them the cultivating of those new plantations, 
to pass on to other countries and nations." 2 All this is indeed 
perfectly consistent with the episcopal theory, since such an 
evangelist may be a missionary-bishop. A fuller examination 
however of Eusebius will show that evangelists did not merely 
found new churches, but builded also those founded by others — 
and that the evangelists he speaks of in the place quoted, are 
declared by him to have been ordained to the highest grade of 
the ministry, before they set out on their work. We extract 
the whole chapter, except a few concluding lines which are 
irrelevant, from an old translation. 

" Chap, xxxiii. Of the Evangelists then flourishing. Among 
them which were then famous was Quadratus, whom they say 
(together with the daughters of Philip) to have been endued 
with the gift of prophesying. And many others, also, at the 
same time flourished, which, obtaining the first step h of apos- 
tolical succession, and being as divine disciples of the chief and 
principal men, builded the churches every where planted by 
the Apostles : and preaching and sowing the celestial seed of 
the kingdonrof heaven throughout the world, filled the barns of 

e Arts xxi. 8. Ephes. iv. 11. 2 Tim. iv. 5. f See noteH. 

g See Dr. Miller's Letters, p 94. [p. 61, 2d ed.] 
h In the Greek ra^iv, order, rank, station, appointment. 



32 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE, 

God with increase. For the greater part of the disciples then 
living, affected with great zeal towards the word of God, first 
fulfilling the heavenly .commandment, distributed their sub-' 
stance unto the poor : next, taking their journey, fulfilled the 
work and office of Evangelists, that is, they preached Christ unto 
them which as yet heard not of the doctrine of faith, and pub- 
lished earnestly the doctrine of the holy gospel. These men 
having planted the faith in sundry new and strange places, 
ordained there other pastors, committing unto them the tillage 
of the new ground, and the oversight of such as were lately 
converted unto the faith, passing themselves unto other people 
and countries, being holpen thereunto by the grace of God 
which wrought with them; for as yet by the power of the Holy 
Ghost they wrought miraculously, so that an innumerable mul- 
titude of men embraced the religion of the Almighty God at 
the first hearing, with prompt and willing minds. Insomuch 
that it is impossible to rehearse by name, when and who were 
pastors and Evangelists in the first succession after the Apos- 
tles in the Churches scattered throughout the world ; it shall 
seem sufficient only to commit to writing and memory, the 
names of such as are recorded unto us by tradition from the 
Apostles themselves, as of Ignatius in the epistles before alleged, 
and of Clemens, mentioned^ in the epistle which for undoubted 
he wrote unto the Corinthians, in the person of the Roman 
Church," &C. 1 

On this extract several remarks may be made. — 1, Eusebius 
here describes what took place long before his own time, and 
what therefore he knew but imperfectly. k -^2, Evangelists, he 
says, did the stationary work of "building" the churches, as 
well as the migratory one of " founding' 5 them ; which shows 
that the definition of that title, in regard to the question whether 
it necessarily implied missionary functions, is not to be certainly 
made out from the fathers any more than from Scripture : for 
what difference is there between a stationary Evangelist and a 
settled minister ? — 3, The Evangelists spoken of by Eusebius are 
said to have " obtained the first s+ep [rank] of apostolical suc- 
cession," i. e. were made Bishops,, in the sense of that word in 
the days of Eusebius, and ever since ; which shows that it is a 
mistake to quote his account of Evangelists in favour of parity; 
those alluded to by him were Evangelist-bishops. — 4, Those 
Evangelists who are named by him in this extract, were all pro?, 
per Bishops. Quadratus was Bishop of Athens. Ignatius was 
Bishop of Antioch, Clement was Bishop of Rome. All which 
is recorded in this same work of Eusebius. 1 — 5, Lest it be 
thought that his expression, " the greater part of the disciples 
then living" became Evangelists, makes it absurd to suppose 
them all Bishops, let it be remarked that he speaks of the rich 

i Eusebjus Eccles. Hist Lib. III. ch. xxxiii. being ch. xxxvii after the Greek, 
k See the end of Lib. VII. and the beginning of Lib. Till. 
1 Lib. Ill, eh. xix. xxxi. xxxii. Lib* IV. ch. xxii. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE 33 

only among th# disciples, since of none but these would he pro- 
bably have recorded that they " distributed their substance to 
the poor." Yet even with this restricted interpretation, and 
much more when unrestricted, this expression of Eusebius is 
magniloquent and oratorical, and not fit to be the basis of any 
argument concerning the number of the early Evangelists. — 
6, Ecclesiastical historians sometimes speak of a person's ordain- 
ing, who did not perform the rite himself, but had it done by 
another ; as the historian Socrates says of the emperor Constan- 
tine, " when he had builded churches among them, he hastened 
to consecrate them a Bishop, and to ordain the holy company 
of clergymen." 111 If it be thus said that Constantine consecrated 
and ordained, though he only employed Bishops to do so, it is 
competent for us to infer, that the same must be meant, if Euse- 
bius be understood to say, that Evangelists, not of the highest 
ministerial rank, ordained ; they only caused persons to be or- 
dained by ministers of that rank. The fair construction, how- 
ever, of his language, is — that the Evangelists he speaks of were 
themselves of that highest order. — 7. Eusebius was a thorough 
Episcopalian, in the sense of the word " Bishop," in that and the 
present day : he speaks of ordaining by Apostles and Bishops, 
and is full of the " successions" of various lines of Bishops down 
from the Apostles. If, then, he was consistent with his own 
opinions, he cannot mean that Evangelists of inferior rank or- 
dained, but must be so interpreted as not to violate his own prin- 
ciples. If, however, he be inconsistent with himself, when he 
comes to speak of Evangelists, his authority on that subject is, 
of course, nugatory. But, we repeat, he is not inconsistent with 
himself, if construed candidly, i, e. according to his own princi- 
ples of episcopacy, in regard to those Evangelists of whom, in 
the passage above quoted, he writes. They were Bishops. 

The other persons named by Eusebius, in his history, as Evan- 
gelists, excepting of course the four writers of the gospels, are, 
we believe, only two. One, named Thaddeus, was sent by the 
Apostle Thomas into Edessa, where he performed miracles, 
preached, and ordained : but he is himself called an " Apostle" 
many times in this work ;p which decides that he also was in 
the highest order of the ministry. The name of the other was 
Pantaenus, who was at first a teacher of divinity at Alexandria, 
in Egypt. The following is recorded of him : " He is said to 



ra Soctrates Eccles. Hist. Lib, I. ch. xiv. being chap, xviii. after the Greek. 
The same transaction is mentioned in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Lib. III. ch. 
Ivi. " their city, (Heliopolis,) which was blinded with superstition, was become 
the Church of God, and filled with Priests and Deacons, and they had a Bishop to 
govern them." 

n Euseb, Hist. Lib. VI ch. vii. xlii. Lib. II. ch. i. Lib. III. ch. xx. Lib. IV. ch. 
xiv. 

. o Ibid, Lib. III. ch. iv — xi— xix— xxxii. Lib. IV. ch. v— xix. Lib. V. ch. xi. Lib. 
VI. ch. ix. Lib. VII. ch. xxxi. Lib. VIII. ch. i. &c. &c. 

p Lib. II. ch. i. Lib. I. ch. xiv. ; see particularly what there follows an epistle 
euid tc have been written by our Saviour. 



34 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

haTe showed such a willing mind towards the publishing of the 
doctrine of Christ, that he became a preacher of the Gospel 
unto the eastern Gentiles, and was sent as far as India. For 
there were, I say, there were then many Evangelists, prepared 
for this purpose, to promote and to plant the heavenly word 
with godly zeal, after the guises of the Apostles. Of these 
Pantaenus, being one, is said to have come into India." r On this 
extract, which we believe completes the evidence on the subject) 
before us, contained in Eusebius, these two remarks suggest 
themselves. 1. It is not said that this Evangelist, Pantaenus, or- 
dained ; he may, like the emperor Constantine, have procured 
ordination by others for the clergy set over the churches he 
founded. 2. Taking for granted even that he did ordain, we 
read that he " planted the heavenly word after the guise of the 
Apostles? conforming to their model or standard ; of course his 
ordinations were after the apostolical example, which has been 
fully shown in the above essay, and was certainly believed by 
Eusebius, to have been according to the episcopal scheme. Such 
ordinations he could not have performed without being a propex 
Bishop himself. 

We think then that parity gains nothing by going to Eusebius 
for an account of the office and powers of Evangelists. On the 
contrary, the gain, such as it is, is on the side of episcopacy. 

After what has now been said, no impartial person will, we 
think, contend that Eusebius meant to say that all Evangelists 
(of all grades) had the power of ordaining. If, however, such 
a proposition be maintained concerning this father, we neutralize 
the evidence thus claimed, by counter-evidence of the same kind, 
that of an ancient but uninspired author, who, in conformity 
with Scripture, asserts that there were among the Evangelists 
persons who had no, right to ordain. We quote from Ham- 
mond: 5 — "For, as the office of Evangelist, being to preach to 
unbelievers, requires not the donation of all the episcopal powersy 
viz. of ruling, nor the power of ordination necessarily, because 
when the Evangelist hath planted the faith, the Apostle himself 
may come and confirm, and ordain Bishops, as we see in Sama- 
ria, Acts viii. 17. (and therefore the author of the Commentaries 
on the Epistles under St. Ambrose's name, saith on this place, 
Quamvis non sint sacer dotes, evangelizare tamenpossunt sine 
cathedra, quemadmodum Stephanies et Philippus y though they 
be not priests, [that is, Bishops,"] yet they may evangelize with- 
out a chair :) so the donation of that superior power doth not 
yet make them cease to be Evangelists." Stephen and Philip, 
both Deacons, and having no right to ordain, or to occupy the 
episcopal " chair," are yet, we see, reckoned Evangelists by this 
writer. Stephen, who we know died a Deacon, is called by him 
an Evangelist. And Philip, who when called in Scripture an 

q uiprjuaros, conformity to a model, example, or standard j copy; close imitation, 
r Lib. V . ch. ix. being ch. x. in the Greek, 
e On Ephea. iv 1 1 : note b. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 35 

Evangelist, is also denominated " one of the seven" Deacons, is 
said by this writer to have been, equally with Stephen, " without 
a chair" of sacerdotal office. This then is uninspired proof, to 
be added to that of revelation, that Evangelists had not, merely 
as such, the right to ordain. And taking into view the whole of 
this sort of proof, the definition which we quoted above from an 
eminent Presbyterian divine, will, we think, be allowed to be, in 
this respect, too unqualified. 

This appeal to the fathers has been made only to meet our 
opponents on their own ground, in their attempt to define from 
those writings a word, the meaning of which cannot be clearly 
made out from Scripture. We have shown that what the fathers 
add towards its elucidation, is entirely in our favour. 

Returning to Scripture, we conclude with yet another answer 
to the assertion of parity — that the superior powers of Timothy, 
being founded on his being an u Evangelist," were to be exer- 
cised only during the early and unsettled state of the Church at 
Ephesus. And here we shall take the case according to parity's 
own showing. Most Presbyterian controvertists (as also, indeed, 
many other writers) suppose Timothy to have been placed at 
Ephesus so early as at the sudden departure of Paul for Mace- 
donia after the riot there. 1 His duty, as an Evangelist, was (say 
anti-episcopalians) to settle the affairs of the then new Church in 
that place. If so, be it remembered, he soon performed one part 
of what (they say) was required of him as such an extraordina- 
ry officer ; he soon ordained Elders in that city or region which 
(they say) was before destitute of them ; for its Elders are ad- 
dressed by Paul in less than a year after his flight from Ephe- 
sus. 11 These Elders, be it next remarked, are there declared 
(they say) to have power to " rule" the flock and their own 
body, besides that of ordaining. If so, the government of that 
Church was fully organized : and thus was fulfilled the other 
part of the function of Timothy, as a special and extraordinary 
officer. Of course that extraordinary officer, the Evangelist, 
was no longer required ; the Ephesian Church had obtained a 
body of Elders, competent, if any such body is, and at least said 
by parity to be competent, to ordain and " rule." Nay, Paul, it 
is alleged, had charged these Elders to "rule the Church of 
God." It surely was time for Timothy, if a mere Evangelist, 
to " pass on to other countries and nations." 

Now, how does this obvious cessation of their need of the sup- 
posed extraordinary officer, agree with the undeniable fact that 
the second epistle was written to him almost seven years after 
the supposed date of his being placed in Ephesus, and more 
than six years after the interview of Paul with its Elders — this 
same Timothy still exercising his ecclesiastical powers in that 
city? In the second epistle, and that only — eleven years after 
the first preaching of Paul in Ephesus, T more than nine years 



t Acts xix. 23, &c. ; xx. 1. 1 Tim. i. 3. u Acta xx. 17. y Acts xriii. 19 



36 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

after the establishment of a Christian body there distinct from 
the Jews, w nearly seven years after the supposed commission to 
Timothy to settle their affairs, and more than six years after 
Paul addressed their Elders — in that late second epistle, and that 
only, is Timothy called an "Evangelist," and desired to "do the 
work" of such a functionary. That is (says parity) Timothy 
was still required for the purpose of ordaining,* although there 
Jiad so long been Elders there competent to ordain ! Timothy 
(says parity) was still required for the governing of that body 
of clergy, although that body had had, for so considerable a 
period, an intiinsic ecclesiastical power to " rule" its own mem 
bers ! 

Is it not obvious then, that the two hypotheses of parity, that 
concerning the right of mere Presbyters to ordain and govern, 
and that concerning the rights of Evangelists, are inconsistent 
with each other % The Evangelist Timothy (they are forced to 
say) held restrained till at least the year 66, the power to " rule," 
which Paul had charged the Elders to exercise in the year 60 ! 
Or else, they must say that the Evangelist Timothy supplanted, 
in the year 66, the rights of the Elders who had been planted in 
Ephesus by the same Evangelist Timothy, in the year 59 or 60 ! 
May we not ask, when did he, or any other apostolical man, 
plant those rights again ? Does not the scriptural evidence on 
these points leave the supposed rights of Presbyters either with- 
held or taken from them, without a hint that the restriction or 
deprivation was afterwards removed ? And may we not justly 
declare, that such incongruities in the best theory of our oppo- 
nents — for they certainly have none better, or as good — are 
something very like an absolute disproof of parity, and, of 
course, a strong indirect proof of Episcopacy ? 



w Acts xix. 9. 

x In the second epistle to Timothy, as well as in the first, allusion is made to his 
ordaining power ; see 2 Tim. ii. 2 : and in another place, after urging him to " do 
the work of an Evangelist," the Apostle adds, " make full proof [fulfil all the parts] 
of thy ministry," which of course included ordaining. 2 Tim. iv. 5. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 37 



APPENDIX. 



NOTE A— page 12. 

Refer to Potter on Church -Government, p. 175. Amer. edit, and to the 
Protestant Episcopalian, No. 3. p. 94. 

Videlius, a non-episcopal writer, says of Clemens Romanus, mentioned 
in Phi), iv. 3. that after the death of Linus and Cletus, who were Bishops 
of Rome before him, " Clemens solus Episcopi nomen retinuit quia jam 
mvaluerat distinct io Episcopi et Presoytcri — Clement alone retained the 
name of Bishop, because there had now grown into use the distinction be- 
tween Bishop and Presbyter." Our quotation is taken from the answer of 
Charles I. to the divines who argued with him in the Isle of Wight, p. 11 
and it shows that a learned non-episcopalian allowed the use of the title 
Bishop, as having been surrendered by a portion of those clergy who had 
formerly enjoyed it, and made superior to that of Presbyter, to have been 
common in the age just after the apostolic, and before the death of St. John;* 
and tnis is equivalent to the assertion of Episcopalians, that that title was 
very early taken from the second order of the ministry, and appropriated to 
the highest, which had previously been called Apostles. . 

NOTE B— page 24. 

Our argument allows the word " feed" to be changed to " rule ;" but this 
is mere concession. The venerable translators have given the true meaning 
of KoifAaivw as adapted to the passage : the context usually deciding the choice 
between the several meanings of a word. In Matt. ii. 6. the word "govern • 
or," and in Rev. ii. 27. xii. 5. and xix. 15, the phrase " rod [sceptre] of iron," 
point to the riding" power of a shepherd. But in the present passage " flock" 
is the proper denning word in the context ; and " feed" is its correlative. It 
it be alleged that " overseers" is the defining word, we answer, that, as a 
literal shepherd is never called in Scripture an " overseer" emaicoizGs, the de- 
fining function belongs more appropriately to the word " flock," as required 
by the congruity of figurative language : we further answer, that the mean- 
ing of "overseers," allowing it to be the defining word for Troifiaivw, 
comes short of the idea of proper "ruling" or supreme government, and 
agrees bettor with that of " feeding" or tending a flock. The word " tend" 
would be a sound translation. — Let those who contend for the word " rule" 
in this place, consider what effect it might have on our controversy with 
Rome to allow the same word in John xxi. 16, where Jesus says to Peter 
"feed [rule] my sheep." If T:oifxaivu> may be translated "rule" without au- 
thority from the cor text, it may be so rendered in the latter passage. If, 
however, this arbitrary mode of translation be disallowed, rule cannot be 
what Paul meant in addressing the Elders of Ephesus. 

Campbell translates John xxi. 16.." tend my sheep," and has an excellent 
note. Bez \ has pasce "feed," both there and (pascendam) in Acts xx. 28. 
Calvin and Erasmus give pasce " feed" in the former, but use the strong 

* Clement succeeded as Bishop of Rome, A. D. 91 ; St. John died A. D. 100. See 
Calmet's Dictionary. 



38 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

word regendam "govern,-' in ike latter; which was either a great oversight 
or a great inconsistency. 

Observe especially this further consideration. When the Romanists urge 
that, in their sense, Peter was to "rule" Christ's sheep, we answer, that 
this notion is fully disproved by other Scriptures ; as, Paul's withstanding 
Peter to the face, and James' presiding in a council held at Jerusalem, though 
Peter was present. (Gal.- ii. 11. Acts xv. 13, 19.) And when the advo- 
cates of parity assert, that, in their sense, the Elders "ruled" at Ephesus, we 
give thera an answer precisely analogous ; other Scriptures contradict that 
notion, as is especially seen in bot*h the epistles to Timothy, as also in those 
to Titus and the "angels" of the seven Churches. The word "feed" there- 
fore (or "tend") is clearly the proper one in both passages : neither the Pope 
nor Presbyters have a right to the rule which they respectively claim. 

NOTE C— page 27. 

In the epistles to the "angels" of the Churches in Smyrna and Thyatira, 
(Rev. ii.) there is a change from the singular. to the plural number. This 
we Episcopalians say, marks a transition of the address, from the angel or 
Bishop, to his Church generally ; but parity often alleges that these examples 
of the plural number show the entire epistles to have been intended for each 
whole Church ; and thus, it is supposed, the idea is refuted that these seven 
epistles were meant for the angels or Bishops, distinctively and individually. 
But the same change in the mode of address occurs in the epistle of Ignatius 
to Polycarp, Bishop of the same Church at Smyrna ; as will be seen«by a 
reference to Archbishop Wake's Translation of the Apostolical Fathers, p. 
228, American edit. ; or Dr. Cooke's Essay y p. xxiii.* In the first four para- 
graphs, Ignatius addresses Polycarp personally and exclusively. In the fifth 
he sends a message^ through Polycarp, to the " sisters" and the "brethren." 
But in the sixth he bursts forth directly to the Church of Smyrna, the flock 
at large — " Hearken unto the Bishop, that God also may hearken unto you. 
My soul be security for them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presby- 
ters and Deacons. And may my portion be together with theirs in God. 

Labour with one another, contend together, run together ' .Let none of 

you be found a deserter Be long-suffering therefore toward each other 

in meekness, as God is towards you." The paragraphs following are ad- 
dressed to Polycarp, like the first four. Now, no one doubts that this epistle 
was directed to one individual, Polycarp, and that the greater part of it related 
to him personally, or in the sacred office which he held ; those even who deny 
its authenticity must allow that it is fabricated on this principle : yet the whole 
of the people are, in the very body of the epistle, addressed directly by Igna- 
tius. Such an episode then is no violence to the main current of such a 
writing ; it was not, in that age, deemed absurck>r incongruous. An address 
to the flock does not vitiate the address to their Bishop in which it occurs. 
This answers the only real objection to the episcopal construction of the 
epistles to the seven " angels." 

It may be here added, that, in the second epistle of St. John, the address 
is twice changed from the plural number to the singular ; part of it being 
addressed to the " elect lady" particularly, and part to her and her children 
jointly. # 

The inscription and the conclusion of the epistle to Philemon are ad-j 
dressed to several persons and a Church ; the body of the epistle is addressed! 
to Philemon, and intended for him exclusively. 

In Philip, iv. 2, 3. are direct addresses to individuals, occurring within the' 
body of an epistle to a whole Church. 

* See page 401, second edition. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED EY SCRIPTURE. 39 

NOTE D— page 28. 
Episcopacy Permanent. 

Scriptural proof having been given for episcopacy, down to the latest date 
of the inspired canon, and it having been also shown that no other ministry 
is set forth in the New -Testament, all is done that was proposed in the be- 
ginning of this essay. It will not, however, be improper to add a few more 
remarks concerning its permanent obligation. Some allege that, though as 
the only scriptural model it was binding in the first ages, it does not follow 
that it continues binding through the whole Christian dispensation. To 
this allegation we thus reply : — 1. It resembles that of the denomination of 
Friends concerning the sacraments, that their outward signs were intended 
for only the early Christians, not for our later periods. There is no stronger 
intimation, we believe, that visible sacraments were to be perpetual, than 
that the ministry established by the Apostles was to be so : the expression, 
concerning the Lord's Supper, "ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' 1 
being no stronger than the charge to Timothy (and every succeeding minis- 
ter of his rank) to "keep the commandment" or trust committed to him 
"till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. xi. 26. 1 Tim. 
vi. 14) The answer to this error concerning the sacraments is or includes 
an answer to the supposition before us, that episcopacy, though having 
inspired authority at first, was yet of only transient obligation. This answer 
to the mistaken opinion concerning the sacraments we need not here detail, as 
those we now address unite with us in deeming it sufficient.— 2. If it be allow- 
ed, of any two ministries now existing, that the one is based on Scripture, and 
the other not, no sound mind, we think, will deny that the former is obligatory 
to the exclusion of the latter. — 3. When our Saviour, after finally commis- 
sioning his Apostles, added " lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the 
world," (Matt, xxviii. 20.) he meant that He would always be with the 
apostolic ministry. This is affirmed by sound Presbyterians, as well as by 
ourselves. And the declaration proves that that ministry was to exercise its 
Lord's authority in the Church to the end of the world. That ministry, the 
apostolic or scriptural one, we have demonstrated, and is allowed by the per- 
sons with whom we now argue, to have been episcopal. Can it then be ima- 
gined by those who are thus far with us, that any ministry subsequently esta- 
blished has the Saviour's authority ? If not, then the position cannot be evaded, 
that episcopacy is permanently binding, " even to the end of the world." — 
4. The epistles to Timothy are said by parity to be intended for all ministers 
in all *ges. Episcopalians say that, besides being addressed to him as the 
chief minister at Ephesus, they were intended for the direction of all other 
chief ministers, by us called Bishops ; and this, we presume, is allowed by 
those for whom this note is written. We now make the more explicit state- 
ment, that these epistles are for the direction of Bishops in all ages. This 
assertion is proved by the injunction, before quoted, to fulfil their trust " till 
the appearing of Jesus Christ ;" and particularly by there being passages in 
them which speak of" the latter times" and "the last days." (1 Tim. iv. 
2 Tim. iii.) These periods, as distinguished by the evils that were to attend 
them, did not, we think, begin during the life of Timothy ; for what the 
Apostle writes concerning them is in the future tense, "in the last days, 
perilous times shall come," &c. And it has been well remarked, that, though 
the vices there mentioned have always existed in the world, their being 
spoken of as characteristic of the latter days implies, that besides being com- 
mon, they would be openly avowed and defended ; which cannot be said 
of the primitive Church. But begin " the last days" and their mischiefs 
when they might, they have not ended yet ; neither, of course, is the obli* 



40 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

gation respecting them, imposed on Bishops by these epistles, ended ; nor is 
the consequent obligation of Christians ended, to support bishops in these 
their duties, i. e. to conform to episcopacy ; non-conformity being opposition, 
either active or passive. And thus episcopacy had and has authority through 
all these periods ; its authority is permanent, down to the present age of the 
world. One direction, grounded on latter-day defections, is particularly wor- 
thy of notice ; " from such turn [thou] away," or as otherwise translated, 
" such turn [thou] away." (2 Tim. iii. 5. See M'Knight.) In the former 
sense, the passage recognises an authoritative discountenance or rejection ot 
false teachers, or of false flocks with their teachers, to be exercised by an 
individual church officer " in the last days." In the latter sense, it recog- 
nizes, more explicitly, the power of excommunicating such persons, as 
residing in such an individual officer, in these periods. In either sense, epis- 
copacy is recognized, as existing and having authority "in the last days"— 
in other words, as a permanent institution, and of permanent obligation. 

NOTE E— page 28, 
The Plea of Necessity, 

It is due to our discussion, to add a few remarks on the question — whether 
necessity will justify a departure from the apostolical or> scriptural ministry 
or the instituting of a new ministry where that cannot be obtained ') On tliis 
subject, the first point to be determined is, what is ( necessity' 3 — ■' Absolute 
necessity' to assume the functions of the ministry never can exist? salvation 
is not indissolubly connected with the offices of a pastor ; the sacraments are 
not absolutely, but only " generally necessary to salvation," those who cannot 
obtain them not being required to partake of them. — Difficulties long insupera- 
ble, preventing the attainment of an important object, form the next species 
of ' necessity/ and that which is usually referred to in this argument. And 
here several questions arise — are the difficulties insuperable — have they been 
long insuperable — is the object so important as to justify deviation from an 
institution allowed to be divine ? There should be no reasonable doubt on 
either of these points. 

In our opinion, the last of the above questions can never be justly answered 
in the affirmative ; no plea can be strong enough to release us from divine 
appointments. What God has instituted for his Church he will preserve in 
his Church, and diffuse though it, till the institution be abrogated by him. or 
is about to be so. This appears to us so clear a dictate of faith, so funda- 
mental a religious truth, that we will not argue for it ; it is an axiom, or at 
least an undeniable postulate. And it ought to settle the whole matter. But 
we shall carry the discussion through. 

As then to the other two questions — we doubt whether the difficulty of ob- 
taining an apostolic ministry, has ever been insuperable for any greater period 
than might naturally and fairly be allowed for the purpose — and we deny 
that the difficulties, be they what they might, have ever been long insupera- 
ble. And thus far, having used only the phrase apostolical or scriptural 
ministry, we suppose that Parity agrees with us. 

We now lemind our readers that we have, in our essay, proved the apos- 
tolical ministry to be episcopacy. And, to come at once to the great case, 
we think it doubtful whether Luther and his associates, and Calvin and his 
associates, were prevented from obtaining episcopacy by difficulties strictly 
insuperable. It is well known to those acquainted with ecclesiastical his- 
tory, that Novatian, a schismatic Bishop, induced three obscure Bishops to 
consecrate him :* and. among the multitude of papal Bishops, could not 

* Milner, Vol. I. p. 351. and Eusebius, Book 6. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 41 

those Reformers have found three, elevated or obscure, to give them the suc- 
cession, or else to join with them, and preside over their purified Church 1 
and this, without resorting to the culpable methods ascribed to Novatian ? 
if this was not clearly impracticable, our present argument has all that it 
asks. Again : it is known to the readers of church history, that Frumen- 
tius, after collecting together a few Christians in India (perhaps Abyssinia,) 
and converting some of the natives, applied to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexan- 
dria in Egypt, for a Bishop to govern them, and ordain pastors for them :* 
and could not the Reformers alluded to, failing with Romish Bishops, have 
gone or sent, to the Greek, or other Eastern churches, for the episcopal suc- 
cession ? did they ever make the experiment 1 Yet again : it is recorded, 
that the Bohemian Church obtained episcopacy from the Waldenses :t and 
could not the Reformers above mentioned have obtained it from either 
the Waldenses or the Bohemian fraternity 1 did they attempt to do so, 
although these Christian communities were as much opposed to the Pope 
as themselves ? In fine : Did either of those Reformers use any efforts 
whatever for this purpose 1 if not, how can the difficulty be called insupera- 
ble 1 or how can it be made the basis of the plea of necessity 1 Nov/, be it 
recollected, we question not the motives of these eminent servants of God ? 
we believe them to have been pure ; but, on that point, they and we stand 
or fall only to our common master $ motives have nothing to do with the 
claims of truth. All that we assert is> that be the difficulties what they might 
in procuring episcopacy, it is doubtful whether they were insuperable ; and 
that if they were not insuperable^ the case of ' necessity ' did not exist. We 
may indeed carry this part of our argument yet further, arnd ask, whether 
any difficulty of magnitude can be alleged — if we may draw, from the fol- 
lowing quotations from Milner, the conclusion,, that Bishops so friendly to 
Luther would have consecrated him'? " . «., . John Thurzo^ Bishop of Bres- 
law in Silesia. This good prelate was descended from a noble family in 
Hungary, and is said to have been the very first papal Bishop who, in his dio- 
cese, was favourable to the revival of pure Christianity. ..... Luther, on the 

occasion of his decease, says in a letter to- a friend, { in this faith died John 
Thurzo, Bishop of Breslaw, of all the Bishops of this age the very best.' " 
" The pious Thurzo died in August,. 1520 ; but the reformation does not 
appear to have materially suffered from this loss. His successor, James 
of Saltza, trode in his steps. This Bishop appointed .... John Hesse .... 

a dear friend of Luther, to preach the gospel in the church of St. M.. Magdalen 
at Breslaw. Hesse not only explained and enforced the great truths of Chris- 
tianity from the pulpit, but for eight days together, in a public disputation, 
defended the same, and exposed the papal dogmas concerning the mass and 
the celibacy of the clergy" J — to the joy of Luther, and the vexation of the 
Pope. Bishops thus friendly to Luther and his cause, and thus appointing 
to a conspicuous station one of his dear and zealous friends — could they not 
have been prevailed on to consecrate him ? They were, of course, under the 
usual promises of fidelity to the Romish Church ; but these could have been 
no stronger in their particular cases, no more binding, than those of all the 
first Reformers, whether Bishops or Presbyters ; who all held such obligations 
to be dissolved, when they came to perceive that the vital corruptions inflexibly 
maintained by that Church required their separation from it. We therefore 
suggest the doubt, whether there was any difficulty of magnitude in the way 
of Luther's obtaining episcopacy for his Church. 

* Socrates, B. I. c. xix. and Milner, Vol. II. p. 110. 

t Commenius, quoted in Bow den's Letters. Vol. II. p. 79. Vol. III. 332, 34£ 

[Vol.1, p. 223. II. p. 163, 2d ed.-] 

t Milner, Vol. V. p. 259, 260. ' 

4* 



42 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

The' above considerations render almost unnecessary a notice of our remain- 
ing proposition — that insuperable difficulties did not long exist. We pro- 
ceed however to the proof, Luther separated from the Church of Rome in 
1520 ; the protest on which the name Protestant was founded, was made in 
1529; the Confession of Augsburgh dates 1530.* Now, to say nothing of 
the possibility of getting the episcopal succession in England under Henry 
VIII, who died in 1547, or under Edward VI, the Church in Sweden was 
fully reformed in 1527, and that in Denmark in 1539 ;t both were reformed 
under Lutheran influence ; and both retained episcopacy. Will then any 
considerate person deny, that, had efforts been made, the succession might 
have been obtained from Sweden not "long" after Luther abjured the papal 
authority, and before the period when the name Protestant and the Augs- 
burgh Confession gave the finish to the Lutheran Church 1 Or, if that Church 
had obtained episcopacy ten years afterwards, when Denmark could have 
given it to them, would that have been waiting "long" for a divine institu- 
tion? WJiere then is the evidence on which the plea of 'necessity 5 is 
grounded ! — Let the reader be reminded, that we are not discussing, in this 
note, the claims of the ministry which those great reformers established ; that 
is done in our essay. Neither are we arguing here with those who deny 
episcopacy to fc>e a scriptural institution ; they have no occasion for the plea 
of • necessity. 5 Neither do we now touch the question, whether this point of 
external order is of importance ; on that subject, our essay has, we presume, 
said enough ; and those who plead ' necessity 5 allow, by so doing, the im- 
portance of the rule departed from on that account. The present note is 
intended for those who grant the apostolic origin of episcopacy, and its obli- 
gation, except in the one case of ' necessity, 5 reasonably defined. And to 
these we say, that there is no evidence that such ' necessity, 5 concerning the 
point before us, has ever existed. 

On the subject of ' supposed necessity 5 (supposed by the persons originally 
concerned) it is impossible to argue, because the case cannot be defined ; 
que person ^calling that 'necessuy 5 which another denies to be so. When 
the difficulty appears great, those wlio yield to it are, we doubt not, excused 
by a merciful God ; and they ought to be fully and readily excused by men. 
But this mild judgment of persons does not establish either the correctness 
of their opinions^ or the validity of their acts. 

Least of all, can the ' supposed necessity 5 which may formerly have led to 
9. deviation from divine institutions, be a sound plea for persevering in that 
deviation after the ' supposed necessity 5 has ceased. It has now been shown, 
we think, that there never was any real ' necessity 5 for dispensing with epis- 
copacy. But, allowing for former periods all that is ever claimed on that 
score, there has been no difficulty at all in procuring a protestant episcopate, 
or else in finding one to conform to and unite with, since the Scotch Bishops 
consecrated Bishop Seabury, the first on our American list, 

NOTE F— page 29, 

The great petitio principii of our opponents is, that the whole apostolic 
function, as distinguished from that of Presbyters, was transient. For this 
supposition, there is neither proof nor hint in Scripture. Inspiration was 
transient ; but in no other respect can the apostleship be shown to have 
lost its original completeness. Timothy, Andronicus, and Junia, are called 
Apostles ; but there is no evidence that they were inspired ; and though 
SUvanus, also denominated an Apostle, -was a " prophet 55 (Acts xv, 32.) it 

* Mosheim, Vol. IV. p. 50, 71, 89. t Jbid. t Vol. V. p. 79, 82. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 43 

will be allowed, we presume, that this does not imply that he possessed the 
higher inspiration of the more eminent apostolic fraternity. 

Of the sophism here censured, there are many lesser exemplifications in 
the argument of Parity, as may be seen in the following statement. 

Parity never can prove, but always takes for granted one or more of the 
following points — 1. that because the name " Bishop" is applied, in Scripture, 
to the second order of the ministry, there is no higher order there mentioned 
— 2. that the transaction in Acts xiii. was the ordination of Barnabas and 
Saul — 3. that the word a presbytery" means, not an office, but a body of 
Elders, and — 4. of Elders strictl} 7- , without an Apostle, or — 5. if an Apostle 
was with them, that he had no more ordaining power than they — 6. that 
evangelists had; as such, supreme power over new churches and their clergy — 
7. that no individuals but the proper Apostles had such authority over 
churches and their clergy after their affairs w r ere settled — 8. that the epistles 
to Timothy were meant for all the clergy in Ephesus— 9. that Timothy had 
supreme authority in Ephesus only as an evangelist, not as an Apostle, or as 
such a successor of the Apostles as was afterwards called a Bishop — 10. that 
Titus was an evangelist — 11. that each of the seven Churches of Asia con- 
sisted of but one congregation — 12. that the " angels" were but pastors of 
single congregations— 13. that they w r ere but moderators of bodies of Presby- 
ters, &c. &c. Some of these points are always taken for granted, in the 
anti-episcopal argument intended to rest on the basis of Scripture. We deny 
them all, and aver that Scripture furnishes, no evidence, less or greater, 
direct or indirect, towards substantiating them, 

NOTE G- page 29. 

On the objection — that monarchy, as much as episcopacy, is set forth in 

Scripture. 

It has been alleged, that as clear authority is found in Scripture for mo- 
narchical government and its perpetuity, as for episcopacy and its perpetuity, 

"submit yourselves to — the king as supreme," (1 Pet. ii. 13.) being 

as strong a precept as " submit yourselves to them that watch for your souls," 
which we have applied to the episcopal ministry set forth in the New Tes- 
tament. This allegation, however, is easily refuted.-—!. Where it is said 
that the king or Roman emperor was supreme, it is also declared that this 
Was the ordinance of man ; audit is because it w T as "the ordinance of man" 
that submission to the emperor was enjoined. The office was "the creation 
(kticu) of man." Of course, man may change that office for another, and 
thus substitute a republican for a royal or imperial government. But the 
Christian ministry is the appoir fluent or creation of Gqd ; so, at least, parity 
believes as well as we ; and with parity is our controversy, not with the 
feeble claim of lay orders, or the creation of ministers by mere human au- 
thority. To suppose the ordinance of man, because recognized and enjoined 
in Scripture, to be as perpetually binding as the ordinance of God, there 
recognized and enjoined^ and not retracted, is, we think, absurd, — 2. Should 
it be further objected that " the powers that be" are declared to be "ordained 
of God ;" (Rom, xiii. 1.) we answer, that nothing is here mentioned of kings 
but only of "the higher powers," and that, unlike some of the provincial 
neople, the Romans, to whom that language was addressed, abhorred the 
title of king;* which circumstances show, independently of other considera- 
tions, that it is not to be taken for granted that mere monarchical " powers" 
were meant in this passage. But besides this : It could not have been meant 

* See Poole's* Synopsis on 1 Pet ii, \3. and M'Knight on do, 



44 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

that the then existing Roman authorities were ordained of God for perpetuity, 
for both prophecy (Dan. vii. 26. 2 Thess. ii. 7.) and history attest the con- 
trary ; which prophecy is scriptural proof against that interpret on. Neither 
were the then existing "powers" beyond the Roman empire ordained to be 
perpetual. They were all, therefore, ordained of God in only this lower 
sense — to serve the purpose of civil government while they should respect- 
ively last. In our opinon, " the powers that be" meuns ' the established civil au- 
thorities that at any time exist ;' submission to these is made binding on Chris- 
tians by the Christian law ; just revolutions, as incidental to every ordinance 
or creation of man, being exceptions to this rule. The object of such pass- 
ages is, we think, to consecrate the social principle which leads to civil ma- 
gistracy, and affix the seal of the divine Author of Christianity to the maxim, 
that men are not individually sovereign, but either jointly so, or else subject 
to some other common sovereignty ; and that maxim, thus divinely ratified, 
decides that men must submit to the lawful public authority under which 
they live. But this has no bearing on the case of the ministry, which was 
not only created and ordained of God, but concerning the abolition or change 
of which no prophecy or hint is uttered, which all history attests to have been 
perpetuated in the episcopal form, and which, if it ever fail, must be again 
appointed by God, and "ordained" anew, not by men, but " for men ;" since 
its business is "in things pertaining to God," since the ministry of recon- 
ciliation is " given" by God, and by him " committed to" men, or " put in" 
men, and since it is an embassy from Christ. (Heb. v, 1, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 
20.) Such an office must either be perpetuated or be lost : it cannot be 
renewed or changed, like the civil offices which are the creation of man. It 
is clear then from Scripture, that civil government, though of perpetual 
general obligation, is not so in any one of its kinds ; while ecclesiastical po- 
lity is permanently binding in the form set forth in the New Testament. - 
3. It has been said, that the appointment of a king for Israel by the Deity, is 
an intimation of the divine will in favour of royal government, and that 
therefore that form of civil magistracy must be as binding as episcopacy. We 
reply, that ?/ such an intimation of the divine will existed, it would unques- 
tionably be binding on Christians, But this is not the fact. On the con- 
trary, by the prophet Hosea, (xiii. 2.) God declares " I gave thee a king in 
mine anger." And the history of the affairs which led to the appointment 
of Saul shows, that it was human perverseness and ambition which insisted 
en having a king, while the Deity opposed it, and even "protested" against 
it. (1 Sam. vih\ 5 — 20, See also the margin of verse 9.) Tliis fact neu- 
tralizes, not only the inference in favour of royal government drawn from 
that case, but all other allegations of the kind pretending scriptural authority. 
This fact shows, indisputably, that God permits men to choose for them- 
selves a form of civil government. Not till the Israelites had freely and 
even irreligiously declared for a monarchy, did the Almighty select the indi- 
vidual who should be their king. In forming, however, the government of 
the Christian Church, man was not even consulted ; the ministry was ap- 
pointed by Christ; its appointment was placed on record by the Holy 
Spirit ; from that record we gather that its model was episcopacy : and this 
we think a sufficient intimation of the will of God that all Christians should 
conform to that model, The case of monarchical government is in no respect 
analogous with this. — i. Parity contradicts its own principles in raising 
objections to our argument from the precepts contained in Scripture to obey 
kings, Sound Presbyterians, as well as sound Episcopalians, believe that 
the ecclesiastical system delineated in Scripture is of permanent obligation. 
We both insist on ordination by succession from the Apostles. If this 
succession is broken, ordination becomes neither episcopal nor presbyterian, 
but, as we both affirm, of mere lay or human authority. Now, if Parity thus 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 45 

claims perpetuity because it is said to be found in Scripture, yet rejects the 
perpetuity of kingly government, also found there, why should Episcopalians 
be censured for doing the very same in behalf of their system'? The same 
arguments which Parity uses in regard to this point, Episcopalians may also 
use. If its friends are satisfied that " the king, as supreme," was a tran- 
sient appointment, so are we. If they are satisfied, on the other hand, that, 
the scriptural model of ecclesiastical polity is not a transient appointment, so 
again are w T e. The only question remaining is — what is the model of the 
ministry contained in Scripture 'I is it presbytery, or is it episcopacy 'J 
And this is the question which has been discussed, and we hope to purpose, 
m the foregoing essay. 

NOTE H— page 31. 

That the duties of an Evangelist, as such, were of an itinerant missionary 
kind, is, so far as the scriptural evidence is concerned, merely taken for 
granted. This point is indeed of small moment in our controversy. But, 
as all errors have a tendency to dispose the mind to further perversions, we 
think the following corroborations of the position, that f it is not to be pre- 
sumed that an Evangelist was necessarily a missionary,' may be useful. 

An old commentator, strongly anti- episcopal, speaks decidedly against the 
missionary functions of evangelists, and gives, in this respect, a just view of 
their duties, as deduced from Scripture only. " These were followers [secta- 
tores, imitators] of the Apostles, and they sometimes abode [subsistebant] in 
a particular church, teaching and defending the Apostles' doctrine. Hence 
[the Scripture] often takes them for the [ipso] minister of the word, (the pas- 
tor, we presume, of some such particular church,) as in 2 Tim. iv. { do the 
work of an evangelist,' that is, diligently and watchfully teach. Such also 
was Philip in Acts xxi." See Aretius on Ephes. iv. 11. It is obvious thai 
this writer considered " evangelists" as rather settled than migratory teach- 
ers, and as being often proper pastors. Another reference will show this 
more fully. f< Do the work of an evangelist, that is, faithfully teaching, I 
suppose an evangelist to mean one who was principally employed in preach- 
ing the gospel, yet was not an Apostle. For these (Apostles) with the highest 
authority of the Holy Spirit, travelled hither and thither for the purpose 
of instituting and reforming [instaurandi et reformandi] churches, wherever 
a place was opened. But Evangelists, without [citra, on this side, short of,] 
the office of apostleship, preached to them (these churches) with the au- 
thority of the next ; [office ;] sometimes they presided over particular churches 
as Bishops (presbyter-bishops.) Such was Timothy, both an Evangelist and 
a Bishop." See Aretius on 2 Tim. iv. 5.^ Our author assigns travelling 
or missionary duty to the Apostles ; he regards them as the founders and 
settlers of churches; but the functions of Evangelists he represents as chiefly 
of a preaching and pastoral kind. — We have made these quotations in aid of 
our assertion, that the missionary character of Evangelists ought not to be 
taken for granted. The author is wrong however in saying that no Evan- 
gelists were Apostles, since Timothy was both. He is also wrong in calling 
Timothy a presbyter-bishop. Our essay has settled these points. 

Charles I., in his controversy, in the Isle of Wight, with the Presbyterian 
Divines, very soundly remarks— (p. 6.) " setting aside men's conjectures, you 
cannot make it appear by any text of Scripture, that the office of an Evangelist 
is such as you have described it. The work of an Evangelist which St. Paul 
exhorteth Timothy to do, seems by the context (2 Tim. iv. 5.) to be nothing 
but diligence in preaching the word, notwithstanding all impediments and 
oppositions." To this the Presbyterian Divines only allege the various 
recorded travels of Timothy and Titus. But these travels were common to 



46 EPISCOPACY" TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 

them and the Apostles ; and as much prove them to have held this latter 
office, as that of Evangelists. 

Milner (Vol. I. p. 56, 59) thinks that Philip, the Evangelist, resided in 
Cesarea twenty or thirty years, from the time he reached there after bap- 
tizing the Ethiopian, (Acts viii. 40.,) till Paul lodged at his house, as men- 
tioned in Acts xxi. 8. 

In fine : There is no scriptural proof that Evangelists, as such, were migra- 
tory or itinerant ; nay, that sort of proof favours the opposite opinion, that 
they did not travel merely in the fulfilment of their evangelizing function. 
And we therefore assert, that, so far as appears from the inspired record, 
Timothy might have " done the work of an Evangelist," without being in 
any sense a missionary Bishop, but exclusively a diocesan. We say this, 
only because it is due to truth and accuracy, not because our argument 
requires it. That Timothy was a proper Bishop we have proved in the 
essay; and it i& of no consequence whether he exercised that office as a 
missionary, or a diocesan, or both. It is expedient, probably in the highest 
degree, that every Bishop, whatever extra duties he may perforin as a mis- 
sionary, be a diocesan or coadjutor ; but this is not essential. In the first found 
ing of Christianity, the apostolical or episcopal labours of almost every indi- 
vidual in the office were necessarily diffused widely. Yet the docile student 
of Scripture will not fail to remark, that it leaves Timothy in Ephesus, and 
the seven " angels" connected with their respective Churches ; to which 
the case of James is to be added, in the Church of Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 
13, 19 ; xxi. 18.) Thus much may be securely claimed, in addition to the 
revealed argument for episcopacy in itself, in favour . of diocesan arrange- 
ments. 



No. 47. 



THE END. 






TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE 



In the essay entitled, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," it 
was noticed that Timothy is called an " apostle" in that sacred 
volume. Almost no use, however, was made of that fact in the 
main argument of the essay, as it was believed to be ne\f matter, 
and indeed was not discovered by the author till his piece was 
written. It was chiefly adduced to show the fallacy of ascrib- 
ing Timothy's superior power to his being an evangelist, when 
he had supreme power as an apostle. The grounds on which it 
was asserted that Timothy has this title in Scripture, were briefly 
given in a note : — 

' See 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with 1 Thess. i. 1. Paul, Silva- 
nus (or Silas,) and Timothy, are all included as " apostles." In 
verse 18, Paul speaks of himself individually, not probably before. 
It is not unusual, indeed, for St. Paul to- use the plural number of 
himself only ; but the words " apostles" and " our own souls," 
(verse 8,) being inapplicable to the singular use of the plural 
number, show that the three whose names are at the head of 
this epistle are here spoken of jointly. And thus Silas and Timo- 
thy are, with Paul, recognised in this passage of Scripture as 
" apostles." ' 

The passage thus referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, 
is — " we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ ; 

but we were willing to have imparted unto you ..... 

our own souls." The words " apostles" and " souls" are obvi- 
ously plural in the plural sense, and show that Paul was not 
speaking of himself alone, but of all the three who joined in the 
epistle. 

A writer in the Connecticut Observer (February 14th) denies 
the application of this language to the three individuals men- 
tioned, and asserts that these plural words have the singular 
sense, and are meant of Paul only. His remarks are as follows : — 

" The proof adduced is a comparison of 1 Thess. ii. 6, with 
the same, i. 1. The writer says, ' Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, 
are all included as apostles. 5 Paul unites Silvanus, or Silas, and 
Timothy, in the salutation with himself, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; and in 
the next chapter, verse 6, he says, ' We might have been burden- 
some to you as apostles of Christ.' The question is, did Paul 
mean to include the others with himself in this passage ? The 
writer in the Protestant Episcopalian affirms that he did. We 
say he did not— -at least, it cannot be proved that he did. The use 
of the plural ' we* does not prove it. For Paul often uses ' we' 
when he intends only himself-, and in letters too in which others 
are joined with him in the salutation. To mention no other, we 

( 47 ) 



48 TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. 

have an instance in this very chapter, verse 18. Compare, also. 
1 Thess. iii. 1, with the same, verse 6. Neither do the plural 
expressions, c apostles' 1 and f our own souls' prove it. We have 
instances of similar modes of expression in other parts of his 
writings, when he himself only is intended. For example of 
the first, f apostles,' compare 2 Cor. i. 24, with the same, i. 23, 
where 'helpers' is used to denote the singular, as ' we' is to 
denote the same. ■ For parallel example to ' our own souls,' as 
denoting the singular; vide 2 Cor. vii. 3, compared with verse 7, 
where £ in our hearts' refers to Paul solely. 7 ' 

On this extract several observations may be made in reply. 

The note from " Episcopacy," &q.^ allows that St. Paul often 
uses the plural for the singular in speaking of himself. So far 
we all agree. 

The reference to 2 Cor. i. 23, 24, will not help the cause of 
parity ; it only shows a transition from the singular to the plural 
in the plural sense, which is very usual where the writer alludes 
to both himself and others bearing any similar relation to the 

persons addressed; "to spare you /came not as yet 

not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of 
your joy." 1. Surely common sense will suggest that if more 
"helpers" than Paul can be found, that expression would be 
sounder than if applied to him alone. Hence it would be com- 
petent to say, without express proof, that by " we" he here 
means apostles or ministers in general. 2. We find, however, 
only five verses before, the persons specially alluded to as 
"we;" they are "Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus," (verse 19.) 
These, then, are the " helpers" of the passage ; and thus that 
word is proved by the context to have, not a singular, but a 
plural meaning. 3. McKnight gives a general plural sense ; not 
that " we apostles" lord it over you, but are joint workers of 
your joy. 4. Doddridge gives another general plural sense, 
" but we, even I, and all the faithful ministers of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, are joint helpers of your joy." Instead, therefore, ot 
weakening the argument that Timothy was an apostle, the 
Observer has rather strengthened it, by pointing to an additional 
case of Paul's using the plural number without giving it the 
meaning of the singular. 

The appeal to 2 Cor. vii. 3, is not more fortunate ; the word 
" hearts" has there unquestionably its natural plural signification, 
including other "hearts" beside that of Paul, "for I have said 
before, that ye are in our hearts." 1. Common sense, as before 
urged, requires us to give plural meanings to such plural words, 
if it can be done consistently, which is the case here, making 
" our hearts" to allude to ministers generally. 2. St. Paul, in 
this passage, refers to a previous expression used by him, " I 
have said before." This reference carries us* to verses 11, 12, 
of the sixth chapter, "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open 

• See margin, McKnight, Poole's Synop., Poole's Annot 



TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. 49 

unto you, our heart is enlarged." Well, the Observer may say, the 
" hearts" plural of the one passage, must mean the " heart" sin- 
gular of the other, and both refer to Paul's affection only. No, 
we reply, " our heart" is a general or collective phrase, (see Rom. 
xv. 6,) equivalent to "our hearts;" and thus others than Paul 
are included. What, then, shall decide between these opposite 
assertions 7 the context. From the words " our heart," (vi. 11,) 
back to the beginning of the chapter continuously (except one 
verse in a parenthesis,) Paul is speaking of the " ministry." To 
that body he alludes every time the first person plural is used 
throughout the passage. Most certainly, then, " our mouth and 
our heart" relate not to St. Paul alone, but to " the ministry" 
spoken of, with a special reference to those of that sacred order 
connected with the Corinthians, or perhaps to himself and Tim- 
othy, who address this epistle to them. Now, what this passage 
means, the other quoted by the Observer means, since Paul refers 
from the latter to the former. Of course the words " our hearts" 
have a plural signification, applying not to Paul alone, but in con- 
junction with others. And thus falls the Observer's remaining 
objection to the scriptural proof of the apostleship of Timothy. 

In the Connecticut Observer of September 17th, there is the 
following passage respecting the apostleship of Timothy ; it is 
comprised in a reply to a writer in the Episcopal Watchman, 
under the signature of Ignatius. 

"Ignatius insists upon it that Timothy was an apostle in the 
same sense in which Paul was an apostle. This argument is so 
wrought into the texture of some modern treatises on Episco- 
pacy, that it deserves a passing remark. The claim has been 
but' lately made by Episcopalians, and rests solely on 1 Thess. 
i. 1, compared with chapter ii. 6. In our remarks on the reviewer 
of the ' Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims] a few months 
ago, we introduced the opinion of a biblical critic second to 
none in this country, that the use of the plural ' apostles' in 
1 Thess. ii. 6, and of i our own souls] verse 8, does not prove 
that Timothy was an apostle. Moreover, according to the author 
of ' Episcopacy tested by Scripture,' who first, so far as we 
Know, urged these passages in proof of the apostleship of Timo- 
thy, this epistle was written ten years, at least, before Paul 
admonished Timothy, ' Let no man despise thy youths If he 
had been at least ten years an apostle, he was admitted to that 
office very young, probably at about the age of twenty. And 
how shall we account for it that when Paul joins Timothy with 
himself in salutation to churches, he calls himself an c apostle] 
and Timothy only a ' brother ?'— vide 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 
Philemon verse 1. He speaks of Timothy just as he does of 
Sosthenes, who, we believe, was never supposed to be an apos- 
tle; vide 1 Cor. i. 1. At this very time, too, when it is now 
claimed that Paul calls Timothy an apostle, according to Arch- 
bishop Potter, Timothy was attending on Paul as a deacon." 
5 



50 TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. 

On this passage the following remarks suggest themselves:— 

The fact that Timothy was an apostle, may, perhaps, be said 
to be " wrought into the texture of the treatise" entitled " Epis- 
copacy Tested by Scripture," but it is not " wrought into the 
texture" of the main argument therein contained. All that 
relates to that fact might be struck from the " treatise" without 
essential injury. Still it is a fact, and is therefore adduced with 
perfect propriety in its bearings on the controversy between our 
cause and that of parity. 

This is the second time the Connecticut Observer has " wrought 
into the texture" of its columns the opinion of " a biblical critic, 
second to none in the country," that Timothy was not an apos- 
tle. Is this reasoning? Who can answer a name? Let the 
critic's arguments be given, and it may be seen whether they 
are sound. If the remarks in the Observer of February 14. 
were the arguments of this eminent critic, they were answered 
in the Protestant Episcopalian for March, which answer has 
never, so far as known, been replied to. And if what is now 
added, in the above extract, be also his, may it not be feared 
that his fund of reasoning on this subject is running low ? At 
all events, these additional observations, whether his or not, are 
peculiarly weak, as will now be shown. 

First among these new objections to the apostleship of Timo- 
thy, at the time 1 Thessalonians was written, is the remark, 
that he must have been made an apostle very young. The answer 
is easy, being nothing more than the objection itself— he was an 
apostle at a very early age* Does this fact prove or disprove 
any thing? Certainly not. Timothy, we know, was very early 
pious and versed in the Scriptures ; whether this was one of 
St. Paul's reasons for placing him so soon in the apostleship, 
cannot now be determined, and is of no consequence ; it is 
enough that Scripture calls him an apostle in the year 54, the 
date of the epistles to the Thessalonians, when he may have 
been no more than twenty years old, but was probably twenty- 
two or three. 

Next objection : Why does Paul, in some places, call himself 
an apostle, and Timothy only a brother ? asks the Observer. 
Really it is too late to inquire, but the fact has not the least 
bearing on the point in question. The apostles were brethren 
to each other, the elders were brethen of the apostles, so %vere 
the deacons, so were the laity. The circumstance, therefore, of 
Paul's calling Timothy a brother, while he calls himself an 
apostle, proves no more that Timothy was not an apostle, than 
it does that he was not a clergyman at all, but only a layman. 

Next : Paul's calling Sosthenes a brother, proves just as much 
as his giving Timothy that appellation. 

Lastly : As to Archbishop Potter's opinion, that Timothy v as 
but a deacon at the time St. Paul terms him an apostle, in 
1 Thess. ii. 6, it is obviously a mistake, since that passage 
decides against him. The cause of the mistake of this able 



TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. 51 

defender of Episcopacy seems to have been twofold. He over- 
looked the passage referred to, which speaks of Timothy as an 
apostle; and he was misled by the word ZiaKovovvrw in Acts 
xix. 22, where it is said that Timothy and Erastus " ministered" 
unto Paul ; which he supposes to mean " were Paul's deacons." 
This is but the old error, so often exposed, of arguing from 
names instead of facts. On the next page (105,) the Archbishop 
repeats it ; stating that elders were proper bishops, because they 
are said tmcKovav. He might as well have allowed that Paul 
himself was but a deacon, because it is written, " Who then is 
Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers foaKovot, by whom ye 
believed? But on the fallacy of reasoning from words only, 
of this kind, without facts, or against facts, nothing more 
need be added ; it is fully exposed in " Episcopacy Tested by 
Scripture." 

May I not, in conclusion, venture to express the hope that the 
evidence for the apostleship of Timothy is strengthened by these 
ineffectual attempts to overthrow it ? 

H, 17, O. 



Prom the Quarterly Christian Spectator. 

REVIEW. 



Episcopacy Tested by Scripture. By the Right Reverend Henry U. 
OnderdonKj D. Z>., Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. New- York : pub- 
lished by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, pp. 46. 

The history of this tract is this. It was first published as an 
essay, in the " Protestant Episcopalian" for November and 
December, 1830. It was then issued in a pamphlet form, without 
the name of the author. It was next requested for publication 
by the " Trustees of the New-York Protestant Episcopal Press ;" 
and after being amended by the author, with an addition of 
several notes, it was printed in the form of a tract, and as such 
has had an extensive circulation. 

The tract is one which has strong claims on the attention of 
those who are not Episcopalians. The name and standing of 
the author will give it extensive publicity. The fact that it 
comes from the " Press" of the Episcopal Church in this coun- 
try ; that it is issued as one of their standing publications, and 
that it will, therefore, be circulated with all the zeal which 
usually characterizes associations organized for defending the 
exclusive views of any religious body ; and, most of all, the 
character of the tract itself, and the ground assumed by it, give 
it a title to our attention which can be claimed by hardly any 
single tract of the kind ever published in our country. Our 
views of it may be expressed in one word. It is the best written, 
the most manly, elaborate, judicious, and candid discussion, in the 
form of a tract, which we have seen on this subject. Our Epis- 
copalian friends regard it as unanswerable. They have provided 
amply for its circulation, and rely on its making converts 
wherever it is perused; and, in a tone which cannot be mis- 
understood, they are exulting in the fact, that to this day it has 
been left entirely unnoticed by the opponenis of prelacy.* And 
we wonder, too, that it has not been noticed. There are men 
among us who seem to consider the external defence of the 
Church as intrusted to their peculiar care; who delight to be 
seen with the accoutrements of the ecclesiastical military order, 
patrolling the walls of Zion ; who parade with much self- 
complacency, as sentinels, in front of the temple of God ; 
who are quick to detect the movements of external enemies ; 

* Has the tract ' Episcopacy Tested by Scripture' been answered 1 This, we 
believe, is neither the first time of asking, nor the second, nor the third. 

Protestant Episcopalian, 
<«2) 



REVIEW — EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 53 

and who are admirably adapted to this species of warfare* 
They seem to have little heart for the interior operations of the 
Church, and seldom notice them, except to suggest doubts of 
the expediency of some new measure proposed, or to promote 
discord and strife by laying down rules for the conduct of those 
who are laboring in the direct work of saving souls. Much do 
we marvel that these men have suffered this tract to lie so long 
unnoticed. 

We have never regarded the Episcopal controversy with any 
very special interest. Our feelings lead us to dwell on subjects 
more directly connected with the salvation of the soul. We have 
no taste for the species of warfare which is often waged in 
guarding the outposts of religion. Christianity, we have sup- 
posed, is designed to act directly on the hearts of men, and we 
regard it as a matter of very little moment in what particular 
church the spirit is prepared for its eternal rest, provided the 
great object be accomplished of bringing it fairly under the 
influence of the Gospel. 

But we propose, for the reasons already suggested, to examine 
the arguments of this tract. We do it with the highest respect 
for the author ; with a full conviction that he has done ample 
justice to his cause; that he has urged on his side of the ques- 
tion all that can be advanced 5 and we enter on the task with, 
sincere pleasure at meeting an argument conducted with entire 
candor, without misrepresentation, and with a manifest love of 
truth. Our wish is to reciprocate this candor ; and our highest 
desire is to imitate the chastened spirit, the sober argumentation, 
and the Christian temper evinced in this tract. It is firm in its 
principles, but not illiberal ; decided in its views, but not censo- 
rious ; settled in its aims, but not resorting to sophism or ridi- 
cule, to carry its points. There is, evidently, in the author's 
mind, too clear a conviction of the truth of what he advances to 
justify a resort to the mere art of the logician ; too manifest a 
love of the cause in which he is engaged to expose himself to 
the retort which might arise from lofty declamation, or the 
expression of angry passions toward his opponents. 

One object which we have in view in noticing this tract is, to 
express our gratification that the controversy is at last put 
where it should have been at first, on an appeal to the Bible 
alone. Never have. we been more disgusted than at the mode 
in which the Episcopal controversy has usually been conducted. 
By common consent, almost, the writers on both sides have 
turned from the New Testament, where the controversy might 
have been brought to a speedy issue, to listen to the decisions 
of the fathers ; and, as might have been expected, have 

u — r- found no end, in wandering mazes lost.'* 

It was the policy of the friends of prelacy to do so; and it was 
the folly of their opponents to suffer them to choose the field of 
debate, and to weary themselves in an effort to fix the meaning, 

5* 



54 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY" 

to secure the consistency, and obtain the suffrages of the fathers. 
Full well was it known, we believe, by the friends of Episco- 
pacy in other times, that the New Testament could furnish a 
most slender support for their claims. In the times of the 
Papacy it had always been defended by an appeal to the fathers. 
The system had risen sustained, not even professedly, by the 
authority of the Bible, but by the traditions of the elders. The 
ranks and orders of the Papal priesthood could be defended only 
by the authority of a church which claimed infallibility, and 
which might dispense, therefore, with the New Testament. 
The reformers came forth from the bosom of the Papacy with 
much of this feeling. They approached this subject with high 
reverence for the opinions of past times ; with a deference for 
the fathers, nourished by all the forms of their education, by all 
existing institutions, and by the reluctance of the human mind 
to break away from the established customs of ages. On the 
one hand, the advocates of Episcopacy found their proofs in the 
common law of the Church, the institutions which had existed 
"time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the con- 
trary ;" and, on the other hand, the opponents of prelacy were 
equally anxious to show that they had not departed from the 
customs of the fathers, and that the defence of their institutions 
might be found in times far remote, and in records which 
received the veneration, and commanded the confidence of the 
Christian world. Into this abyss both parties plunged. In this 
immense chaos of opinions and interpretations, into these mov- 
ing, disorganized, jostling elements, where, as in the first chaos, 
light struggled with darkness, and confusion reigned, they threw 
themselves, to endeavor severally to find the support of their 
opinions. "Whatsoever time, or the heedless hand of blind 
chance," says Milton, " hath drawn down from of old to this 
present, in her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells 
or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the fathers." With 
those who, according to Mosheim,* deemed it not only lawful, 
but commendable to deceive and lie for the sake of truth and 
piety, it would be singular if any point could be settled that 
involved controversy. With men who held to every strange and 
ridiculous opinion ; to every vagary that the human mind can 
conceive ;t it would be strange if both sides in this controversy 
did not find enough that had the appearance of demonstration 
to perplex and embarrass an opponent ad libitum. In examin- 
ing this controversy as it was conducted in former times, we 
have been often amused and edified at the perfect complacency 
with which a passage from one of the fathers is adduced in 
defence of either side of the question, and the perfect ease with 
which, by a new translation, or by introducing a few words of 
the context, or more frequently by an appeal to some other part 



* Murdoch's Mosheim, vol. i. p. 159. 

t See Tillemont's Ecclesiastical History, passim. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 55 

of the same author, not studious himself of consistency, and 
probably having no settled principles, the passage is shown to 
mean just the contrary ; and then again a new version, or yet 
another quotation, shall give it a new aspect and restore it to 
its former honors * Thus the fathers became a mere football 
between the contending parties ; and thus, in this contro- 
versy, the weary searcher for truth finds no solid ground. 
Eminently here " he which is first in his cause seemeth just ; 
but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Prov. xviii. 17. 
To this wearisome and unsatisfactory toil he is doomed who 
will read all the older controversies on Episcopacy. There he, 

V O'er bog, or steep, through strait, rough, dense or rare, 
With head, hands, wings or feet, pursues his way, 
And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies." 

Were we to adduce the most striking instance of the plastic 
nature of this kind of proof, we should refer to the epistles of 
Ignatius. To our eyes, they seem to be a plain straight forward 
account of the existence of Presbyterianism in his time. They 
are substantially such a description as a man would give, 
writing in the inflated and exaggerated manner in which the 
orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism as it exists in the United 
States. Yet it is well known that with the utmost pertinacity 
niose letters have been adduced as proving the doctrine of Epis- 
copacy. And so confident have been the assertions on the sub- 
ject, that not a few Non-episcopalians have given them up as 
unmanageable, and have stoutly contended, what may be very 
true, that no inconsiderable part of them are forgeries. 

Any man can see what a hopeless task is before him if he 
endeavors to settle this controversy by the authority of the 
fathers. The waste of time, and talent, and learning, on this 
subject, is fitted deeply to humble the heart. And even yet the 
passion has not ceased. Even now, men high in office and in 
rank, leave the New Testament and appeal to the fathers. 
Episcopacy is discarded, not principally because the New Testa- 
ment is a stranger to it, but because Jerome was not a prelatist ; 
it is rejected, not because it cannot be made out from the Bible, 
but because it is a matter of debate whether the fathers teach it 
or not. 

From this unprofitable and endless litigation we are glad to 
lurn to the true merits of the case. We rejoice sincerely that 
one man can be found who is willing to bring to this subject 
the great principle of the Protestant reformation, that all 
religious opinions are to be tested by the Scriptures. And we 
especially rejoice to see this principle so decisively advanced by 
a man of the talents and official rank of Dr. Onderdonk ; and 
that it is so prominently avowed, by sending forth from the 
"Protestant Episcopal Press" a tract defending this principle. 

* See the Letters of Dr. Miller aad Dr. Bowden on Episcopacy, passim. 



56 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

It indicates a healthy state of things in the Episcopal Church in 
this country. It Will save endless disputes about words, and 
much useless toil in endeavoring to give consistency and sense 
to the fathers. This mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide 
the controversy. Long have we wished to see this matter 
brought to so obvious and so just an issue ; and long have we 
expected that, when this should be the case, the matter would 
be soon decided. Hereafter let it be held up as a great prin- 
ciple, from which, neither in spirit nor in form, we are ever to 
depart, that if the peculiar doctrines of Episcopacy are not found 
in the Scriptures they are to be honestly abandoned, or Jield, 
as Cranmer held them, as matters of mere expediency. Let this 
truth go forth, never to be recalled, and let every man who attempts 
to defend the claims of bishops appeal to the Bible alone. On 
this appeal, with confidence, we rest the issue of this case. 

The great principle on which the argument in this tract is 
conducted is indicated in its title ; it is further stated at length in 
the tract itself, Thus, in the opening sentence, " The claim of 
Episcopacy to be of divine institution, and therefore obligatory 
on the Church, rests fundamentally on the one question — Has it 
the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, it is not necessarily 
binding/ 5 Again, on the same page, " No argument is worth 
taking into the account, that has not a palpable bearing on the 
clear and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." 
Having stated this principle, the writer proceeds to remark, that 
"the argument is obstructed with many extraneous and irrele- 
vant difficulties, which, instead of aiding the mind in reaching 
the truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it and 
occupy it with questions not affecting the main issue." The 
first object of the "essay" is then stated to be, "to point out 
some of these extraneous questions and difficulties, and expose 
either their fallacy or their irrelevancy." " The next object will 
be to state the scriptural argument." 

In pursuing this plan, the writer introduces and discusses, as 
one of these extraneous difficulties, the objection that Episco- 
pacy is inimical to a free government. He next notices, as 
" another of these extraneous considerations, the comparative 
standing in piety, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral and 
spiritual character, of the members respectively of the Episcopal 
and Non-episcopal churches." A third " suggestion" noticed is, 
" that the external arrangements of religion are but of inferior 
importance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the sub- 
ject before us may be dispensed with." p. 5. A fourth, " appa- 
rently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty often raised, is, that 
Episcopal claims unchurch all Non-episcopal denominations." 
p. 6. This consequence, the author of the tract says is not by 
him allowed, " But granting it to the fullest extent," it is asked, 
" what bearing has it on the truth of the single proposition that 
Episcopacy is of divine ordinance ?" A fifth among these extra- 
neous points, is " the practice of adducing the authority of 



1 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 57 

individuals, who, although eminent in learning and piety, seem 
at least to have contradicted themselves or these public standards 
on the subject of Episcopacy." p. 7. The last objection noticed, 
as not affecting the ultimate decision of the controversy, is, " that 
though the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed 
to favor Episcopacy, still that regimen is not there explicitly 
commanded." p. 9. 

To most of the observations under these several heads we 
give our hearty assent. And it will be perceived that the con- 
troversy is thus reduced to very narrow limits; and that, if 
these principles are correct, numberless tomes which have been 
written on both sides of the question are totally useless. We 
are glad that all this extraneous matter is struck off, and should 
rejoice if every consideration of this kind were hereafter to be 
laid out of view. 

In discussing the second topic proposed, " the scriptural evi- 
dence relating to this controversy," (p. 11,) the first object of 
Dr. Onderdonk is to state the precise point in debate. It is 
then observed that " parity declares that there is but one order 
of men authorized to minister in sacred things, all of this order 
being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual 
rights. Episcopacy declares that the Christian ministry was 
established in three orders, called ever since tne apostolic age, 
bishops, presbyters or elders, and deacons, of which the highest 
only has a right to ordain and confirm, that of general super- 
vision in a diocese, &c." p. 11. The main question is then 
stated, correctly, to be, that " concerning the superiority of 
bishops ;" and the object of the essay is to prove that, according 
to the New Testament, such an order existed, and was clothed 
with such peculiar powers, p. 11. Let it not be forgotten that 
this is the main point in the case, and that if this is not made 
out, so as to be binding on the Church every where, the claims of 
Episcopacy fall to the ground. 

In endeavoring to establish this point, the author maintains, 
" that the apostles ordained," and denies that elders (presbyters) 
ever did. p. 14. In supporting this position the plan of argu- 
ment is to show, that " the apostles and elders had not equal 
power and rights." p. 14. An attempt is, therefore, made to 
prove that the difference between the two orders is, that the 
former had the power of ordination, the latter not. In pursuing the 
reasoning (p. 16) the writer endeavors to show, that " there is 
no scriptural evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordained." 
Under this branch of the argument, he examines the texts which 
have usually been adduced in favor of Presbyterian ordination. 
Having shown, as he supposes, that these passages do not prove 
that they did thus ordain, Dr. O. next proceeds to the last branch 
of the subject, viz., that " this distinction between elders and a 
grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordain- 
ing, was so persevered in, as to indicate that it was & permanent 
arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary." p. 23. 



58 REVIEW— -EPISCOPACY 

This is the outline of the argument. It manifestly embraces 
the essential points of the case. And if these positions cannot 
be maintained, Episcopacy has no binding obligation on men, 
and such a claim should be at once abandoned. This argument 
we propose, with great respect, but with entire freedom, to 
examine. And we expect to show that the point is not made 
out, that the New Testament has designated a superior rank of 
church officers, intrusted with the sole power of ordination, and 
general superintendence of the Church. 

In entering on this discussion, we shall first endeavor to ascer- 
tain the real point of the controversy, and to show that the 
scripture authorities appealed to, do not establish the point main* 
tained by Episcopalians. In pursuance of this, we remark, that 
the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of Episcopacy. 
They set up a claim — a claim which they affirm to be binding 
on all the churches of every age. It is a claim which is specific, 
and which must be made out, or their whole pretensions fall. 
In what predicament it may leave other churches is not the 
question. It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, 
could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in 
the Scriptures; or that Congregationalism has no claims to 
support; or that Independency is unauthorized; or even that 
lay-ordination is destitute of direct support. The question after 
all might be, whether it was the design of the Apostles to estab- 
lish any particular form of church government, any more than 
to establish a fixed mode of civil administration ? This question 
we do not intend to examine now. neither do we design to 
express any opinion on it. We say only, that it is a question on 
which much may be said, and which should not be considered 
as settled in this controversy. The specific point to be made 
out is, that there is scriptural authority for that which is claimed 
for the bishops. And we may remark further, that this is not a 
claim which can be defended by any doubtful passages of Scrip- 
ture, or by any very circuitous mode of argumentation. As it is 
expected to affect the whole organization of the Church ; to 
constitute, in fact, the peculiarity of its organization ; and to 
determine, to a great extent at least, the validity of all its ordi- 
nances, and its ministry ; we have a right to demand that the 
proof should not be of a doubtful character, or of a nature which 
is not easily apprehended by the ordinary readers of the N =tw 
Testament. 

We repeat now, as of essential importance in this controversy, 
that the burden of proof lies on the friends of Episcopacy. It is 
theirs to make out this specific claim. To decide whether they 
can do so, is the object of this inquiry. 

The first question then, is, What is the claim ; or, what is the 
essential point which is to be made out in the defence of Epis- 
copacy 7 This claim is stated in the following words: (p. 11 :) 
"Episcopacy declares, that the Christian ministry was estab- 
lished in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 59 

presbyters or elders, [tf so > WD T do they now call the second 
order priests ?] and deacons, of which the highest only has the 
right to ordain and confirm, that of the chief administration in a 
diocese, and that of the chief administration of spiritual disci- 
pline, besides enjoying all the powers of the other grades." The 
main question, as thus stated, relates to the authority of bishops, 
and the writer adds, " If we cannot authenticate the claims of 
the Episcopal office, (the office of bishops,) we will surrender 
those of our deacons, and let all power be confined to the one 
office of presbyters." The same view of the main point of the 
controversy is given by Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, 
b. vii. § 2. 

It will be seen that several claims are here set up in behalf of 
bishops. One is, the right of ordination : a second, that of con- 
firmation ; a third, that of general supervision ; a fourth, that of 
the general administration of discipline. These are separate 
points to be made out, and a distinct argument might be entered 
into to show that neither of them is founded on the authority of 
the Scriptures. To enter on this discussion would require more 
time and space than we can now spare. Nor is it necessary, 
for we presume the Episcopalian would be willing to stake the 
whole cause on his being able to make out the authority of ordi- 
nation to lie solely in the bishop. For, obviously, if that cannot 
be made out, all the other pretensions are good for nothing ; and, 
as the writer of this tract limits his inquiries to this single point, 
we shall confine our remarks to this also. 

The question then is, Has a bishop the sole power of ordain- 
ing ? Is setting apart to a sacred office,— to the office of preach- 
ing and administering the sacraments, confined in the New Test- 
ament exclusively to this order of ministers ? The Episcopalian 
claims that it is. We deny it, and ask him for the explicit proof 
of a point so simple as this, and one which we have a right to 
expect he will make out, with very great clearness, from the 
sacred Scriptures* 

The first proof adduced by the author is, that the apostles had 
the sole power of ordaining. This is a highly important point 
in the discussion, or rather 3 the very hinge of the controversy. We 
cannot, therefore, but express our surprise, that a writer who 
can see the value and bearing of an argument so clearly as 
Dr. !)nderdonk, should not have thought himself called upon to 
devo,j more than two pages to its direct defence; and that, with- 
ouT adducing any explicit passages of the New Testament. The 
argunient stated in these two pages, or these parts of three pages, 
(14, k, 16,) rests on the assumption that the apostles ordained. 
" That the apostles ordained, all agree." Now, if this means 
any thing to the purpose, it means that they ordained as apos- 
tles ; or that they were set apart to the apostolic office for the 
purpose of ordaining. But this we shall take the liberty to deny, 
and to prove to be an unfounded claim. Having made this 
assumption, the writer adds, that a distinction is observed in the 



60 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

New Testament between " the apostles and elders," the " apos- 
tles, and elders, and brethren." He next attempts to show, that 
this distinction was not made because they " were appointed by 
Christ personally," nor because " they had seen our Lord after 
his resurrection ;" nor " because of this power of working mira- 
cles ;" and then the writer adds, " It follows, therefore, or will 
not at least be questioned," — a qualification which, by the way, 
seems to look as if the writer had himself no great confidence in 
the consecutiveness of the demonstration, u that the apostles 
were distinguished from the elders, because they were superior 
to them in ministerial power and rights." p. 15. This is the 
argument, and this is the whole of it. On the making out of this 
point depends the stupendous fabric of Episcopacy. Here is 
the corner-stone on which rests the claims of bishops; this the 
position on which the imposing and mighty superstructure has 
been reared. Our readers will join with us in our amazement, 
that this point has not been made out with a clearer deduction of 
arguments, than such as were fitted to lead to the ambiguous 
conclusion, " it follows, therefore, or — ." 

Now, the only way of ascertaining whether this claim be well 
founded, is to appeal at once to the New Testament. The ques- 
tion, then, which we propose to settle now, is, Whether the 
Apostles were chosen for the distinctive and peculiar work of 
ordaining to sacred offices ? This the Episcopalian affirms. 
This we take the liberty of calling in question. 

The Evangelists have given three separate and full accounts 
of the appointment of the Apostles. One is recorded by Matthew 
ch. x. ; another by Mark, iii. 12, &c. ; the third by Luke, ch. vi. 
They were selected from the other disciples, and set apart to 
their work with great solemnity. Luke vi. The act was per- 
formed in the presence of a great multitude, and after the 
Saviour had passed the night in prayer to God. Luke vi. 12. 
The instructions given to them on the occasion occupy, in one 
part of the record, (Matt.) the entire chapter of forty-two verses. 
The directions are given with very great particularity, embrac- 
ing a great variety of topics, evidently intended to guide them 
in all their ministry, and to furnish them with ample instruc- 
tion as to the nature of their office. They refer to times which 
should follow the death of the Lord Jesus, and were designed 
to include the whole of their peculiar work. Matt. x. 17-23. 

Now, on the supposition of the Episcopalian, that the peculi- 
arity of their work was to ordain, or that " they were distin- 
guished from the elders because they were superior to them in 
ministerial powers and rights," (p. 15,) we cannot but regard it 
as unaccountable that we find not one word of this here. There 
is not the slightest allusion to any such distinguishing " power* 
and rights." There is nothing which can be tortured into any 
such claim. This is the more remarkable, as on another occa- 
sion he sent forth seventy disciples at one time, (Lukex. 1-16,) 
usually regarded by Episcopalians as the foundation of the 



TE3TED BY SCRIPTURE. 61 

second order of their ministers: (see " The Scholar Armed :") 
and there is not the slightest intimation given that they were to 
be inferior to the apostles in the power of ordaining or super- 
intending the churches. We do not know what explanation the 
Episcopalian will give of this remarkable omission in the instruc- 
tions of the primitive bishops. 

This omission is not the less remarkable in the instructions 
which the Lord Jesus gave to these same Apostles, after his 
resurrection from the dead. At that time we should assuredly 
have expected an intimation of the existence of some such peculiar 
power. But not the slightest hint occurs of any such exclusive 
authority and superintendence. Matthew, (xxviii. 18-20,) Mark 
(xvi. 15-18,) and Luke (xxiv. 47-49,) have each recorded these 
parting instructions. They have told us that he directed them 
to remain in Jerusalem (Luke) until they were endued with 
power from on high, and then to go forth and preach the Gospel 
to every creature ; but not a solitary syllable about any exclusive 
power of ordination ; about their being a peculiar order of 
ministers : about their transmitting the peculiarity of the apos- 
tolic office to others. We should have been glad to see some 
explanation of this fact. We wish to be apprized of the reason, 
if any exist, why, if the peculiarity of their office consisted in 
" superiority of ministerial powers and rights," neither at their 
election and ordination, nor in the departing charge of the 
Saviour, nor in any intermediate time, we ever hear of it ; that 
even the advocates for the powers of the bishop never pretend 
to adduce a solitary expression that can be construed into a 
reference to any such distinction. 

We proceed now to observe, that there is not any where else 
in the New Testament, a statement that this was the peculiarity 
of their apostolic office. Of this any man may be satisfied who 
will examine the New Testament. Or he may find the proof in 
a less laborious way, by simply looking at the fact, that* neither 
Dr. Onderdonk, nor any of the advocates of Episcopacy, pretend 
to adduce any such declaration. The Apostles often speak of 
themselves ; the historian of their doings (Luke) often mentions 
them ; but the place remains yet to be designated, after this con- 
troversy has been carried on by keen-sighted disputants for 
several hundred years, which speaks of any such peculiarity of 
their office. 

This point, then, we shall consider as settled, and shall feel at 
liberty to make as much of it as we possibly can in the argu- 
ment. And we might here insist on the strong presumption 
thus furnished, that this settles the case. We should be very 
apt to regard it as decisive in any other case. If two men go 
from a government to a foreign court, and one of them claims 
to be a plenipotentiary, and affirms that the other is a mere 
private secretary, or a consul, we expect that the claimant will 
sustain his pretensions by an appeal to his commission or 
instructions. If he maintains that this is the peculiarity of his 
6 



62 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

office, though he may "enjoy all the powers of the other 
grades," (p. 11,) we expect to find this clearly proved in the 
documents which he brings. If he is mentioned by no name 
that designates his office, as the Episcopalian admits the bishop 
is not, (pp. 12, 13,) — if his commission contains no such appoint- 
ment, and if we should learn that specific instructions were 
given to him at his appointment, and again repeated in a solemn 
manner when he left his native shores, — we should at least look 
with strong suspicions on these remarkable claims. Would not 
any foreign court decide at once that such pretensions, under 
such circumstances, were utterly unfounded? 

We proceed now to inquire, whether it is possible to ascertain 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office? for it must be conceded 
that there was something to distinguish the apostles from the 
other ministers of the New Testament. Here, happily, we are 
in no way left in the dark. The Saviour, and the Apostles, and 
sacred writers themselves, have given an account which cannot 
be easily mistaken ; and our amazement is, that the writer of 
this tract has not adverted to it. The first account which we 
adduce is from the lips of the Saviour himself. In those solemn 
moments when he was about to leave the world, — when the work 
of atonement was finished, — and when he gave the Apostles their 
final commission, he indicated the nature of their labors, and 
the peculiarity of their office, in these words : (Luke xxiv. 48 :) 
" And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send 
the promise of my Father upon you," &c. The object of their 
special appointment, which he here specifies, was, that they 
should be witnesses to all nations. (Comp. v. 47, and Matthew 
xxviii. 18, 19.) The " things" of which they were to bear wit- 
ness, he specifies in the preceding verse. They were his suffer- 
ings in accordance with the predictions of the prophets : " thus 
it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer ;" and his 
resurrection from the dead: "and to rise from the dead the 
third day." These were the points to bear " witness," to which 
they had been selected ; and these were the points on which they, 
in fact, insisted in their ministry. See the Acts of the Apostles, 
passim. 

We would next remark, this is expressly declared to be the 
" peculiarity" of the apostolic office. It was done so at the elec- 
tion of an apostle to fill up the vacated place of Judas. Here, 
if the peculiar design had been to confer " superiority in minis- 
terial rights and powers," we should expect to be favored with 
some account of it. It was the very time when we should 
expect them to give an account of the reason why they filled up 
the vacancy in the college of apostles, and when they actually did 
make such a statement. Their words are these : (Acts i. 21, 22:) 
" Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us, all 
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, begin- 
ning from the baptism of John, unto that same day when he was 
taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness WITH 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 63 

US of his resurrection. 11 This passage we consider to be abso- 
lutely decisive on the point before us. It shows, first, for what 
purpose they ordained him ; and, second, that they were ordained 
for the same purpose. Why 'do we hear nothing on this occa- 
sion of their " superiority of ministerial rights and powers P 
why nothing of their peculiar prerogative to ordain? why 
nothing of their " general superintendence" of the Church? 
Plainly, because they had conceived of nothing of this kind, as 
entering into their original commission and peculiar design. 
For this purpose of bearing testimony to the world of the fact 
of the resurrection of the Messiah, they had been originally 
selected. For this they had been prepared, by a long intimate 
acquaintance with the Saviour. They had seen him ; had been 
with him in various scenes, fitted to instruct them more fully in his 
designs and character; had enjoyed an intimate personal friend- 
ship with him, (1 John i. 1,) and were thus qualified to go forth 
as " witnesses" of what they had seen and heard ; to confirm 
the great doctrine that the Messiah had come, had died, and had 
risen, according to the predictions of the prophets. We just add 
here, that these truths were of sufficient importance to demand 
the appointment of twelve honest men to give them confirma- 
tion. It has been shown, over and over again, that there was 
consummate wisdom in the appointment of witnesses enough 
to satisfy any reasonable mind, and yet not so many as to give 
it the appearance of tumult or popular excitement. The truth 
of the whole scheme of Christianity rested on making out the 
fact, that the Lord Jesus had risen from the dead ; and the 
importance of that religion to the welfare of mankind, demanded 
that this should be substantiated to the conviction of the world. 
Hence the anxiety of the eleven to complete the number of the 
original witnesses selected by the Saviour, and that the person 
chosen should have the same acquaintance with the facts that 
they had themselves. 

It is worthy, also, of remark, that in the account which the 
historian gives of their labors, this is the main idea which is 
presented. Acts ii. 32. " This Jesus hath God raised up, where- 
of we are witnesses; 1 - v. 32, "And we are witnesses of these 
things ;" x. 39-41, " And we are witnesses of all things which 
he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom 
they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up the 
third day, and showed him openly ; not to all the people, but 
unto witnesses chosen before of God, even unto us," &.c. In 
this place we meet with another explicit declaration, that this 
was the object of their original appointment. They were 
"chosen" for this, and set apart in the holy presence of God 
to this work. Why do we not hear any thing of " their supe- 
riority in ministerial rights and powers?" Why not an inti- 
mation of the power of confirming, and of general superin- 
tendence? We repeat that it is not possible to answer these 
questions, except on the supposition that they did not regard 



64 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

any such powers as at all entering into the peculiarity of their 
commission. 

Having disposed of all that is said in the New Testament, so 
far as we know, of the original design of the appointment to the 
apostolic office, we proceed to another and somewhat independ- 
ent source of evidence. The original number of the apostles 
was twelve. The design of their selection we have seen. For 
important purposes, however, it pleased God to add to their 
number one, who had not been a personal attendant on the 
ministry of the Saviour, and who was called to the apostleship 
four years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Now 
this is a case, evidently, which must throw very important light 
on our inquiries. It is independent of the others. And, as he 
was not a personal observer of the life and death of Jesus ; as 
he was not an original " witness" in the case, we may expect In 
the record of his appointment, a full account of his " superiority 
in ministerial rights and powers." If such superiority entered 
into the peculiarity of the apostolic office, this was the very case 
where we expect to find it. His conversion was subsequent to 
the resurrection. He was to be employed extensively in found- 
ing and organizing churches. He was to have intrusted to him 
almost the entire Pagan world. Comp. Rom. xv. 16. His very 
business was one that seemed to call for some specific account of 
"superiority in ministerial rights," if any such rights were 
involved in the apostolic office. How natural to expect a state- 
ment of such rights ; and an account of the " general superin- 
tendence" intrusted to him, as an apostle ! Let us look, there- 
fore, and see how the case stands. We have three distinct 
accounts of his conversion and appointment to the apostleship, 
in each of which the design of his appointment is stated. Acts 
xxii. 14, 15. In his discourse before the Jews he repeats the 
charge given to him by Ananias, at Damascus : " The God of 
our fathers hath chosen thee, &c. For thou shalt be his witness 
unto all men of what thou hast seen and heardP Again (Acts 
xxvi. 16,) in his speech before Agrippa, Paul repeats the words 
addressed to him by the Lord Jesus in his original commission : 
" I have appeared unto thee for this purpose > to make thee a 
minister virvpinjv and a witness of those things," &c. Again, 
(Acts xxiii. 11,) in the account which is given of his past and 
future work, it is said : " As thou hast testified of me in Jerusa- 
lem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." 

This is the account which is given of the call of Saul of Tar- 
sus to the apostolic office. But where is there a single syllable 
of any " superiority in ministerial powers and rights," as consti- 
tuting the peculiarity of his office ? We respectfully ask the 
writer of this tract, and all other advocates of Episcopacy, 
to point to us a " light or shadow" of any such Episcopal 
investment. We think their argument demands it. And if there 
is no such account, neither in the original choice of the twelve, 
nor in the appointment of Matthias, nor in the selection of the 






TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 65 

Apostle to the Gentiles ; we take the liberty to insist with firm- 
ness on a satisfactory explanation of the causes which operated 
to produce the omission of the very gest of their office accord- 
ing to Episcopacy. We insist on being told of some reasons, 
prudential or otherwise, which made it proper to pass over the 
very vitality of the original commission. 

But we have not done with the apostle Paul. He is too 
important a " witness" for us, as well as for the purpose for 
which he was appointed, to be dismissed without further atten- 
tion. It has been remarked already, that he was not a personal 
follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and was not present at his death 
and ascension. It may be asked, then, how could he be a wit- 
ness, in the sense and for the purposes already described? 
Let us see how this was provided for. We transcribe the 
account from his own statement of the address made to him by 
Ananias. Acts xxii. 14. " The God of our fathers hath chosen 
thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and see that Just One, 
and shouldst hear the words of his mouth." That he had thus 
seen him, it is not necessary to prove. See 1 Cor. xv. 8; Acts 
ix. 5, 17. The inference which we here draw is, that he was 
permitted to see the Lord Jesus in an extraordinary manner, 
for the express purpose of qualifying him to be invested with 
the peculiarity of the apostleship. This inference, sufficiently 
clear from the very statement, we shall now proceed to put. 
beyond the possibility of doubt. 

We turn, then, to another account which Paul has given of 
his call to the apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2; " Am I not an apos- 
tle ? Am I not free ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord V* 
We adduce this passage as proof, that to have seen Jesus 
Christ was considered as an indispensable qualification for the 
apostleship. So Paul regarded it in his own case. We adduce 
it also for another purpose, viz., to strengthen our main position, 
that the Apostles were designated to their office specifically as wit- 
nesses to the character and resurrection of Christ. If this was 
not the design, we ask, Why does Paul appeal to the fact that 
he had seen the Saviour, as proof that he was qualified to be an 
apostle? And we further ask, with emphasis, If the Apostles, 
as Episcopalians pretend, did, in virtue of their office, possess 
" superiority in ministerial powers and rights," why did not Paul 
once hint at the fact in this passage ? His express object was to 
vindicate his claim to the apostleship. In doing this, he appeals 
to that which we maintain to have constituted the peculiarity of 
the office, his being " witness" to the Saviour. In this instance 
we have a circumstance of which Paley would make much in 
an argument, if it fell in with the design of the " Horae Paulinae." 
We claim the privilege of making as much of it upon the ques- 
tion, whether the peculiarity of the apostolic office was "supe- 
riority of ministerial powers and, rights." 

We have now examined ail the passages of Scripture which 
state the design of the apostleship. And we have shown, if we 
6* 



66 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

mistake not, that the ground of the distinction between the 
" apostles and elders," c * the apostles, and elders, and brethren," 
was not that the former had superiority of " ministerial powers 
and rights." We might leave the argument here; for if the 
Episcopalians cannot make out this point to entire satisfaction, 
all that is said about successors in the apostolic office, and about 
perpetuating apostleship, must be nugatory and vain. But we 
have an independent topic of remark here ; and one which 
bears on the subject, therefore, with all the force of a cumula- 
tive argument. To the consideration of this, we are led by the 
next position of Dr. Onderdonk. This is stated in the following 
words : that " there was continued, as had begun in the apos- 
tles, an order of ministers superior to the elders." p. 16. This 
he attempts to prove, on the ground u that there is no scriptural 
evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordained." pp. 16-23. 
And that " the above distinction between elders and a grade 
superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, 
was so persevered in as to indicate that it was a permanent 
arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary, pp. 23-29. 
We shall reverse the order of this argument. 

In the inquiry, then, whether this distinction was continued, 
or persevered in, we might insist on what has been already 
shown, as decisive. If the original distinction was what we 
have proved it to be, it could not be persevered in, without (as 
in the case of Paul) a personal direct manifestation of the 
ascended Saviour, to qualify every future incumbent for the 
apostleship. 1 Cor. ix. 1. No modern "bishop," we presume, 
will lay claim to this. The very supposition that any such 
revelation was necessary, would dethrone every prelate, and 
prostrate every mitre in Christendom. 

But we have, as before remarked, an independent train of 
arguments on this point. It is evident that the whole burden of 
proof here lies on the Episcopalian. He maintains that such an 
original distinction existed, and that it was perpetuated. Both 
these positions we deny. The first we have shown to be un- 
founded, and have thus virtually destroyed the other. We pro- 
ceed, however, to the comparatively needless task of showing 
that Dr. Onderdonk's second position is equally unfounded. His 
evidence we shall examine as we find it scattered throughout the 
tract before us. 

The first argument is, that " some are named apostles in 
Scripture, who were not thus appointed, (i. e. by the Saviour 
himself,) as Matthias, Barnabas, and probably James, the 
brother of our Lord, all ordained by mere human ordainers. 
Silvanus also, and Timothy, are called " apostles ;" and besides 
Andronicus and Junia, others could be added to the list. p. 15. 

The argument here is, that the name " apostle" is given to 
them, and that they held, therefore, the peculiar office in ques- 
tion. But the mere circumstance that they had this name, 
would not of itself establish this point. It is not necessary, we 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 67 

presume, to apprize our readers, that the word apostle means 
one who is sent, aud may be applied to any person employed to 
deliver a message ; and in a general sense, to any minister of 
religion, or to any one sent, to proclaim the message of life. 
Thus in John xiii. 16, it is applied to any messenger, sustaining 
the same relation to one who sends him that the servant does to 
his master. " The servant is not greater than his lord, [master] 
neither he that is sent, arroaroUs, greater than he that sent him." 
Thus it is applied (Philip, ii. 25) to Epaphroditus not as an 
apostle in the specific sense of the term, but as a messenger, sent 
by the Church at Philippi to supply the wants of Paul. (Comp. 
Philip, iv. 18.) "Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in 
labor, but you?' messenger," fyfiv 61 azdoroUv, your apostle. Thus 
also in 2 Cor. viii. 23, it is applied to the " brethren," " the mes- 
sengers of the churches ;" " our brethren are the messengers of 
the churches," uirdaTo\oi IkkXwi&v. These passages show, beyond 
a question, that the name is often used in the New Testament 
in its generic signification, and, consequently, the mere fact that 
it is applied to an individual, is not proof that he was an apostle 
in its specific sense, — the only sense which would be of value 
in the argument of the Episcopalian. The connexions, the 
circumstances, are to determine its meaning. We make this 
remark, in accordance with the judicious observation of Dr. 
Onderdonk, p. 13, " A little reflection and practice will enable 
any of our readers to look in Scripture for the several sacred 
offices, independently of the names there or elsewhere given to 
them." 

The question then is, whether the name apostle is so given to 
the persons here designated, as to show that it is used in its 
strict specific sense. 

The first case is that of " Matthias." The reason why the 
name was given to him we have already shown. He was an 
apostle in the strict, proper sense, because he was chosen to be 
a " witness" of the resurrection of the Saviour. Acts i. 22. 

The second case is that of Barnabas. He is once called an 
apostle. (Acts xiv. 14.) That he was not an apostle in the strict, 
proper sense, Dr. Onderdonk has himself most laboriously and 
satisfactorily proved. In his argument against Presbyterian 
ordination, (pp. 16, 17,) he has taken much pains to show that 
Barnabas was set apart (Acts xiii. 1-3) " to a special missionary 
work;" " was merely set apart to a particular field of duty;" 
that is, was sent as a messenger of the Church to perform a par- 
ticular piece of work. It is observable that before this, Barnabas 
is called merely c( a prophet and teacher;" (Acts xiii. 1-11 ;) 
that he is called an apostle in immediate connexion with this 
designation, and nowhere else. Acts xiv. 14. How Dr. Onder- 
donk, after having shown so conclusively, as we think, that the 
transaction at Antioch was not a Presbyterian ordination ; that 
it was a mere designation to a particular field of labor, should 
persist in maintaining that Barnabas was an apostle, in the strict 



68 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sense, as having a " superiority of ministerial rights and powers," 
we profess our inability to conceive. We shall thus dismiss the 
case of Matthias and Barnabas. 

The next case is " probably James, the brother of our Lord." 
The use of the word probably, here, shows a wish to press cases 
into the service, which we regret to see in a tract making strong 
pretensions to strict demonstration: (comp. pp. 3, 11, 16, 23, 
&c. :) but it evinces a deficiency of strong, palpable instances, 
which betrays the conscious feebleness of the argument. " James, 
the Lord's brother," is once mentioned as an apostle: Gal. i. 19. 
But it could not have escaped the recollection of Dr. Onderdonk 
that there were two of the name of James among the Apostles 
in the specific sense of the term ; viz. James the brother of John, 
and son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus. Matt. x. 3 ; 
Luke vi. 15. Nor can it he unknown to him, that the word 
brother was used by the Hebrews to denote a relative more 
remote than that which is designated by the ordinary use of the 
word among us; and thai Alpheus was probably a connexion of 
the family of our Lord. What proof, then, is there, that he was 
not referred to in the passage before us ? As this case is 
alleged to have only a probability in its favor, we consider it 
disposed of. 

Sylvanus and Timothy are the next mentioned. As their 
claim tp be considered apostles rests on the same foundation, so 
far as the name is any evidence, we shall dispose of these cases 
by considering that of Timothy at length in a subsequent part of 
the argument. 

The remaining cases are those of Andronicus and Junia. The 
foundation for their claim to be enrolled as apostles, is the fol- 
lowing mention of them by Paul: Rom. xvi. 7: "Salute Andro- 
nicus and Junia, my kinsmen, who are of note am,ong the Apos- 
tles," birivis tiaiv iitforipoi h roT? arocrrtXois. On this claim we remark ; 
(1.) Admitting that they are here called apostles, the name, as we 
have proved, does not imply that they had any u superiority of 
ministerial rights and powers." They might have been distin- 
guished as messengers, or laborers, like Epaphroditus. (2.) It 
is clear that the Apostle did not mean to give them the name of 
apostles at all. If he had designed it, the phraseology would 
have been different. Comp. Rom. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; 
Philip, i. 1. (3.) All that the expression fairly implies, is, that 
they, having been early converted, (Rom. xvi. 7,) and being 
acquainted with the Apostles at Jerusalem, were held in high 
esteem by them; the Apostles regarded them with confidence 
$nd affection. We consider this case, therefore, as disposed of.* 

The next point of proof in the tract before us, " that the dis- 



* Dr. Onderdonk says that Calvin, in his Institutes, " allows Andronicus and 
Junia to haye been -apostles ;" but he ought to have added that Calvin, in his Com- 
mentary on the passage, written at a later period, denies mat they were apostles in 
the specific sense of the term. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 69 

tinction between elders and a grade superior to them, in regard 
especially to the power of ordaining, was so persevered in as to 
indicate that it was a 'permanent arrangement, 55 is drawn from 
the charge given by the Apostle Paul to the elders of Ephesus. 
Acts xx. 28-35. The point of this evidence, as we understand 
it, is this. Paul charges the elders at Ephesus to " take heed to 
themselves," — " to take heed to all the flock over which the 
Holy Ghost had made them overseers, — to feed the Church of 
God, — to watch against the grievous wolves that would assail 
the flock," &c. In all this, we are told, there is not a word, 
respecting the power of ordaining, nor any thing which shows 
that they had the power of clerical discipline. " No power is 
intimated to depose from office one of their own number, or an 
unsound minister coming among them. 57 They are to " tend" 
or "rule" the flock as shepherds 5 "for shepherds do not tend 
■and rule shepherds." pp. 23, 24. 

This is affirmed to be the sole power of these elders. In con- 
nexion with this we are asked to read the Epistles to Timothy, 
— the power there given " personally to Timothy at Ephesus," 
(p. 23,) or as it is elsewhere expressed. " Compare now with 
this sum total of power assigned to mere elders, or presbyters, 
that of Timothy at Ephesus, the very city and region in which 
those addressed by 'Paul, in Acts xx., resided and ministered." 
p. 25. In those epistles it is said that the "right of governing 
the clergy, and ordaining, is ascribed to him personally f and 
numerous undisputed passages are then adduced, to show that 
Timothy is addressed as having this power. 1 Tim. i. 18 ; iii. 
14, 15 ; iv. 6 5 i. 3; v. 19-21, &c, &c. 

Now this argument proceeds on the following assumptions, 
viz. — 1. That Timothy was called an apostle ; was invested with 
the same powers as the Apostles, and was one of their success- 
ors in the office. 2. That he was, at the time when Paul gave 
his charge to the elders at Miletus, bishop of Ephesus. 3. That 
the " elders" summoned to Miletus, were ministers of the Gospel 
of the second order, or as they are now termed, usually, priests, 
in contradistinction from bishops and deacons. If these points 
are not made out from the New Testament, or if any one of them 
fails, this argument for " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," will 
be of no value. We shall take them up and dispose of them in 
their order. 

The first claim is, that Timothy is called an " apostle," and 
was, therefore, clothed with apostolic powers. This claim is 
advanced on p. 15. " Silvanus also, and Timothy, are called 
4 apostles,' " and the claim is implied in the whole argument, 
and is essential to its validity. The proof on which this claim 
is made to rest, is contained in 1 Thess. i. 1, compared with 
1 Thess. ii. 6. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, are joined together 
in the commencement of the epistle, as writing it to the Church at 
Thessalonica ; and in ch. ii. 6, the following expression occurs, 
"Nor of man sought we glory — when we might have been bur- 



70 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

densome as the apostles of Christ." This is the sole proof of 
the apost/eship of Timothy, — of which so much is made in tlie 
Episcopal controversy, and which is usually appealed to as itself 
sufficient to settle the question. 

Now, without insisting on the point which we have made out, 
that the apostolic office was conferred not to impart "superi- 
ority of ministerial rights and powers," but to establish every 
where the great doctrine of the truth of Christianity, and that, 
consequently, if Timothy is called an apostle, it is only in the 
generic sense of the word, to which we have adverted, and that 
Paul might also on this occasion speak of himself, as joined 
with Timothy and Silvanus, as a messenger of the churches; 
(comp. Acts xiii. 2 ; xiv. 14 ; Rom. xvi. 25 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23 ;) not 
to insist on this position, we shall dispose of this claim by the 
following considerations. 1. The passage does not fairly imply 
that Timothy was even called an apostle. For it is admitted in 
the tract, (p. 15,) that " it is not unusual for St. Paul to use the 
plural number of himself only." It is argued indeed, that the 
words " apostles," and " our own souls," (v. 8,) being inappli- 
cable to the singular use of the plural number, hence the " three 
whose names are at the head of the epistle, are here spoken of 
jointly." But if Paul used the plural number as applicable to 
himself, would it not be natural for him to continue its use, and 
to employ the adjectives, &c, connected with it in the same 
number? Besides, there is conclusive evidence that Paul did 
not intend to include the " three" named at the head of the 
epistle, in his expression in ver. 6. For in the verses immediately 
preceding, mention is made that " we had suffered before, and 
were shamefully treated, as ye know, at Philippi," &c. Now it 
is capable of demonstration, that Timothy was not present at 
that time, and was not engaged in those labors, or subjected to 
those sufferings at Philippi. Acts xvi. 12, 19; xvii. 1-4. It 
follows, therefore, that Paul did not intend here, to imply that 
" the three named at the head of the epistle" were apostles; and 
that he either intended to speak of himself alone, in ver. 6, or 
what is more probable, that he spoke of himself as one of the 
apostles, and of what the apostles might do in virtue of their 
office; that is, that they might be burdensome, or might "use 
authority," as in the margin. 

Our next proof that Timothy was not an apostle, is, that he is. 
expressly distinguished from Paul, as an apostle; that is, in 
the same verse, Paul is careful to speak of himself as an apos- 
tle, and of Timothy as not an apostle. Thus, 2 Cor. i. 1, " Paul 
an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy oar brother." Again, 
Col. i. 1, " Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our 
brother." Now, our argument is this, that if Paul regarded 
Timothy as an apostle, it is remarkable that he should be sa 
careful to make this distinction, when his own nam,e is men- 
tioned as an apostle. Why did he not also make the same 
honorable mention of Timothy ? — Will some of our Episcopal 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 71 

friends be kind enough to state why this distinction is made? — 
The distinction is the more remarkable, from the next con- 
sideration to be adduced, which is, that Paul is so cautious 
on this point, so resolved not to call Timothy an apostle, that 
when their names are joined together, as in any sense claiming 
the same appellation, it is not as apostles, but as servants. Philip. 
i. 1 : " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ." 
See also, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1. These considerations put 
it beyond debate in our view, that Timothy is not called an 
apostle in the New Testament. This, it will be perceived, is an 
important advance in our argument. 

The second claim for Timothy is, that he was bishop of 
Ephesus. This claim is essential to the argument of Dr. Onder- 
donk, and is every where implied in what he says of Timothy. 
See pp. 23, 25. Proof is not indeed attempted ; but it is 
assumed as a conceded point. Now this point should have been 
made out, for it is not one of those which we are disposed, by 
any means, to concede. It is to be remembered, too, that it is a 
point which is to be made out from the New Testament , for our 
inquiry is, whether Episcopacy can be defended " by Scripture." 
Let us see how this matter stands. 

It may be proper here to remark, that the subscription at the 
close of the Second Epistle to Timothy, " ordained first bishop 
of the church of the Ephesians," &c, is admitted on all hands 
not to be inspired, and, therefore, is of no authority in this argu- 
ment. Assuredly Paul would not close a letter in this way, by 
seriously informing Timothy that he wrote a second epistle to 
him, &c, and by appending this to the letter. By whom these 
subscriptions to the epistles were added, is unknown. Some of 
them are manifestly false ; and none of them, though true, are 
of any authority. The subscription here belongs, we believe, to 
the former class. 

Now, how does the case stand in the New Testament, with 
respect to Timothy ? What testimony does it afford, as to his 
being "bishop of Ephesus?" A few observations will save 
further debate, we trust, on this subject. 

1. It is admitted that he was not at Ephesus, at the time when 
Paul made his address to the elders at Miletus. Thus, p. 25, 
" Ephesus was without a bishop when Paul addressed the elders, 
Timothy not having been placed over that church till some time 
afterward." Here, then, was one diocese, or one collection of 
churches, which is admitted to have been constituted without a 
bishop. The presumption is, that all others were organized in 
the same way. 

2. The charge which Paul gives to the elders proves that 
Timothy was not there ; and proves further, that they, at that 
time, had no bishops, and that they previously had none. They 
are charged to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock, " to 
feed" or " to rule" the flock, &c. But not one word is to be 



72 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

found of their having then any prelatical bishop ; not one word 
of Timothy as their Episcopal leader. Not an exhortation is 
given to be subject to any prelate; not an intimation that they 
would ever be called on to recognise any such bishops. Not 
one word of lamentation or condolence is expressed, that they 
were not fully supplied with all proper Episcopal authority. 
All of which is inexplicable, on the supposition that they were 
then destitute, and that they would be supplied with an officer 
" superior in ministerial rights and powers." Nay, they are 
themselves expressly called bishops, without the slightest inti- 
mation that there were any higher, or more honorable prelates 
than themselves. Acts xx. 28 : " Take heed, therefore, to your- 
selves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you bishops," ImcKo-novs. 

3. It is admitted by us that Timothy subsequently was at 
Ephesus, and that he was left there for an important purpose, 
by the Apostle Paul. This was when Paul went to Macedonia. 
1 Tim. i 3. This is the only intimation that we know of, in 
the New Testament, that Timothy was ever at Ephesus at all. 
It is important, then, to ascertain whether he w r as left there as a 
permanent bishop ? Now in settling this, we remark, it is no- 
where intimated, in the New Testament, that he was such a 
bishop. The passage before us, 1 Tim. i. 3, states, that when 
they were travelling together, Paul left him there, while he 
himself should go over into Macedonia. The object for which 
he left him is explicitly stated, and that object was not that he 
should be a permanent bishop. It is said to be " to charge some 
that they teach no other doctrine, neither to give heed to endless 
genealogies," &c. ; that is, manifestly, to perform a temporary 
office of regulating certain disorders in the Church ; of silencing 
certain false teachers of Jewish extraction ; of producing, in 
one word, what the personal influence of the Apostle himself 
might have produced, but for a sudden and unexpected call to 
Macedonia. Acts xx. 1. Hence it is perfectly clear that the 
Apostle designed this as a temporary appointment for a specific 
object, and that object was not to be prelate of the Church. 
Thus he says, 1 Tim. iv. 13, " Till I come, give attention to 
reading," &c. : implying that his temporary office was then to 
cease. Thus, too, referring to the same purpose to return and 
join Timothy, he says, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15 : " These things I write 
unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry 
long, thai thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself in the house of God," &c. ; implying that these direc- 
tions were particularly to serve him during his appointment to 
the specific business of regulating some disordered affairs pro- 
duced by false teachers, and which might require the discipline of 
even some of the bishops and deacons of the Church, ch. v. vi. 
These directions, involving general principles indeed, and of 
value to regulate his whole life, yet had, nevertheless, a mani- 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 73 

fest special reference to the cases which might occur there, in 
putting a period to the promulgation of erroneous doctrines by 
Jewish teachers. 1 Tim. i. 3. 

4. It has been shown by the late Dr. Wilson, of Philadelphia, 
from the New Testament itself, that Timothy was not the bishop 
of the church at Ephesus. To this argument, which is too long 
to be inserted here, and which cannot be abridged, we can only 
refer.* 

[In the second edition of his review, Mr. Barnes has inserted 
at large the argument here referred to. We extract it, therefore, 
from the work of Dr. Wilson. A different view of the subject 
will be found in some of our subsequent pagesj 

" That Paul and Timothy were together at Ephesus, and that 
Paul left him there when he went on some occasion into Mace- 
donia, may be plainly inferred from 1 Tim. i. 3. f I besought 
thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia.' 
The time to which there is here an allusion is the more easily 
ascertained, because the Apostle is recorded to have been twice 
only at Ephesus ; on the first occasion, he merely called on his 
voyage from Corinth and Jerusalem ; on the second, he went 
from Ephesus into Macedonia, according to the words of the 
epistle. 

" That Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, expelled by 
the riot, went into Macedonia, obtains satisfactory proofs. Before 
he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy 
and Erastus into Macedonia, but he himself remained in Asia 
for some time. Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. v. 17 ; xvi. 10. In the first 
letter to the Corinthians, which he wrote at Ephesus, and sent 
by Titus to Corinth, he mentioned his purpose of coming to 
them, but not immediately ; of which Luke also informs us, 
Acts xix. 21, and desired them, if Timothy came to them, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 10, 11, to conduct him forth in peace, that he might come 
to Paul, then at Ephesus, for he looked for him, with the 
brethren. When he closed that letter he was expecting Timo- 
thy's return, which that letter might also have hastened. Paul 
remained at Ephesus, on this visit, the space of three years. 
Acts xx. 31. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that he 
was disappointed in his expectation of the arrival of Timothy, 
from Corinth, at Ephesus, before he went into Macedonia; and 
if so, he might have left him there, as he at some period cer- 
tainly did. 1 Tim. i. 3. He had intended to go by Corinth into 
Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, but changed his mind and went by 
Troas thither. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. Whilst in Mace- 
donia, he wrote his first letter to Timothy, for he proposed to 
him to remain at Ephesus until he should call there on his way 
to Jerusalem. 1 Tim. i. 3 ; iii. 14, 15. The words imply that 



* The Primitive Government of the Christian Churches, pp. 251-262. 

7 



74 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

Paul might tarry some time ; and that he did so before he went 
into Greece, is fairly implied in the expression, ( And when he 
had gone over those parts, and given them much exhortation, 
he came into Greece.' Acts xx. 2. Timothy was advised, 
solicited, or besought (irapcKa^a) to abide still at Ephesus, which 
gave him liberty to exercise his discretion, but several motives 
must have influenced him to go to the Apostle. The enemies 
at Ephesus were numerous and violent; Timothy was young; 
his affection for Paul ardent ; the request of Paul that he should 
abide at Ephesus was not peremptory ; and Paul told him he 
expected to tarry a long time. Also Timothy had been, from 
their commencement, familiarly acquainted with the churches 
in Macedonia and Greece. Accordingly we find Timothy in 
Macedonia when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinth- 
ians. 1 Cor. i. 1. The Apostle went from Macedonia into 
Greece, Acts xx. 2, as he had promised in that letter, chapter 
xiii. 1, and abode there three months. Acts xx. 3. Timothy was 
with him at Corinth, for he sends his salutations to the Romans, 
Rom. xvi. 21, in that famous epistle written from thence.* 

" That there was sufficient time for Paul to have written from 
Macedonia to Timothy at Ephesus, and for Timothy to have 
spent some months at Ephesus, before he came to Paul in 
Macedonia, appears from the time he waited for Titus at Troas, 
2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ; his determination not to go to Corinth till he 
could do it without heaviness, 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; his distress in Mace- 
donia before Titus arrived, 2 Cor. vii. 5 ; and his success in 
raising charities for the saints in Judea, 2 Cor. viii. 2, 3; ix. 4. 
He had intended to tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 8, but went sooner, Acts xx. 1. He passed on to Jerusalem at 
another Pentecost, Acts xx. 16 ; all which time he was in Mace- 
donia, except three months. Acts xx. 3. 

" That Paul expected to spend so much time in Macedonia 
and Greece, may be collected from his intimation, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
that he might spend the winter with the Corinthian church. 
The Apostle's purpose of sailing from Corinth, was disap- 
pointed by the insidiousness of his own countrymen ; he there- 
fore went up into Macedonia again, that he might pass over to 
Troas with his companions. Timothy was among those who 
crossed first. Acts xx. 3, 5. Paul's disappointment in sailing 
from Corinth, and his wish to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, 
prevented the call he intended at Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, but 
he landed at Miletus, and sent for the elders of the church at 
Ephesus. 

" The directions of the Apostle in the third chapter of the first 
epistle to Timothy, fairly imply that he had left the church at 
Ephesus, according to his usual practice, without officers, for he 
gives this evangelist, not a new commission, he already had 



* Compare Acts xviii. 2, with Rom. xvi. 3. Vide Acts 19, xviii. 26; 1 Cor 
xvi. 19. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 75 

power to ordain, but instructions as to the choice of bishops, 
that is, presbyters and deacons. These had been complied with 
before he landed at Miletus. Acts xx. 17. This record of the 
existence of elders at Ephesus, compared with the directions 
given to Timothy, not only renders it probable that Timothy 
had ordained them, but fortifies the presumption that the first 
epistle to Timothy was written in Macedonia, before this visit 
to Jerusalem, and consequently before his imprisonment. 

"The language, 'I going (xopevoiitvos) into Macedonia, besought 
thee to abide still at Ephesus,' did not form a permanent con- 
nexion between Timothy and Ephesus. At the very greatest 
extent, the instructions given in this letter were of a continuance 
only till Paul should come to him, (cus lpx°pai.) 1 Tim. iv. 1$; 
iii. 14. But it is certain that Timothy did not remain at Ephe- 
sus till Paul passed on his way to Jerusalem. 

" The second epistle to Timothy will prove itself written by 
Paul when a prisoner at Rome ; and at least establishes the 
absence of the evangelist from his spiritual father at the time it 
was written. But he was at Rome in the time of the first 
imprisonment, as has been proved by his having been joined 
with Paul in the letters to the Colossians, Philippians and Phi- 
lemon. Demas and Mark were also there in the first imprison- 
ment, Col. iv. 10, 14, but absent at the writing of the second to 
Timothy. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11. 

u It is therefore an error to suppose it to have been written 
before the epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon,, 
-during the first imprisonment. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 20, Paul tells 
him Erastus abode at Corinth, but this needed not to have been 
told to Timothy, if Paul meant that Erastus abode at Corinth 
when he went to Jerusalem, and so to Rome, for Timothy was 
then with him, and must have known the circumstance had it 
been so. In like manner he says, ibid, ' Trophimus have I left 
at Miletum, sick. 3 But Trophimus was not left at any place on 
the voyage to Jerusalem, for he was there, and the occasion of 
the jealousies of the Jews. Acts xxi. 29. 

" These two facts, compared with this, which appears in the 
epistle, that it was written by Paul, a prisoner at Rome, afford 
sufficient certainty that there was a second imprisonment when 
this letter was written. 

" But it by no means follows, that Timothy was at Ephesus 
when the second epistle was written. This ought not to be 
assumed, but shown. If Timothy was then at Ephesus, why 
should he have been told, ' I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus V 
2 Tim. iv. 12. He must have arrived at that place before the 
letter, and the fact could have been then known. Also Tychi- 
cus needed no introduction to Timothy. Had Timothy been at 
Ephesus, Paul would not have sent him to Troas for articles he 
had left there. It appears more probable that Timothy was, at 
the time the epistle was sent to him, at Troas, or in the neigh- 



76 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

borhood of that place. The salutations will not establish the 
destination of the epistle. Onesiphorus resided in Asia, but the 
particular place of his abode is not known. He helped Paul 
both at Ephesus and Rome. Also Aquila, who had resided at 
Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, and again at Rome, was a native 
of Pontus, on the margin of the Euxine. Trophimus, whom 
Paul had left at Miletum, was an Ephesian. Acts xxi. 29. Mile- 
tus was near Ephesus, and Timothy would have known the 
facts, unless Miletum in Crete was the place. 

" If Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second letter was 
written to him, there is no evidence of his being in that city 
after Paul's first imprisonment. But if he had been at Ephesus 
he must have then left it, the letter calling him to Rome, and the 
sacred records speak not of his return to that city. The second 
epistle assigns to Timothy no other duties than those proper to 
his general office of evangelist ; and bears no relation to a par- 
ticular oversight of any church or churches. 

" Some writers suppose that Paul, when he landed at Miletus, 
on a subsequent voyage to Jerusalem, left Timothy with the 
elders of the church at Ephesus, ' to govern them in his 
absence.' But nothing of the kind was spoken on the occasion ; 
and instead of a temporary absence, Paul assured the elders 
they should ' see his face no more.' In 1 Tim. i. 3, it is not said, 
c when I went to Jerusalem,' but expressly, ' I besought thee to 
abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia? Also it 
has been asserted, that the Apostle having placed Timothy at 
Ephesus prior to his first imprisonment, ' wrote both his epistles 
tp Timothy while a prisoner at Rome.' But Timothy was 
with Paul at Rome during a part of the first imprisonment, for 
he is joined in the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and 
Philemon. Salutations also might have been expected in the 
first epistle to Timothy, had it been written from Rome, as in 
those to the Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and the Hebrews. 
He was indeed absent from Rome during a part of the time 
of the first imprisonment, but Paul expected his return, Heb. 
xiii. 23, and so far was he from hoping to come unto Timothy 
shortly, as expressed in 1 Tim. iii. 14, he promises, if Timothy 
come shortly to Rome, with him to visit the Hebrews. Also it 
seems strange, if Timothy had been at Ephesus when the 
epistle to the Ephesians was sent by Tychicus, Eph. vi. 21, 
that no notice whatever should have been taken of the beloved 
youth. 

"Another hypothesis is, that Paul, when the Jews deterred 
him from sailing from Corinth, and he determined to go through 
Macedonia to Jerusalem, besought Timothy to abide still at 
Ephesus; to which, when Timothy agreed, he went forward 
to Troas, with Aristarchus and the rest ; and whilst waiting 
there for Paul, Timothy received the first epistle from the Apos- 
tle, written in Macedonia. But this is a departure from the 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 77 

correct meaning of the passage, which is, that Paul besought 
Timothy rpto/riM, to continue or remain at the place where 
Timothy was at the time he was thus entreated. Those who 
went before with Timothy to Troas, are represented to have 
accompanied Paul into Asia. Acts xx. 4, 5. This circumstance 
renders it an improbable supposition, that Paul should write so 
long and important a letter to his fellow-traveller, whom he 
must overtake in a few days, and wholly unaccountable, that he 
should say in the letter, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, ' These things write 
I unto you, hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry 
long,' &c. That Paul should have thus purposed to come to 
Timothy unto Ephesus, but really at Troas, and in a few weeks 
afterward, without any apparent cause for a change of views, 
should have said at Miletus to the elders of the church of Ephe- 
sus, ' I know that ye all shall see my face no more, 5 Acts xx. 25, 
exhibits a fluctuation approximating versatility. If Timothy- 
was on this occasion left with the officers of the church ai 
Ephesus, and especially, if he was to be thenceforth their, dio- 
cesan bishop, it is strange that not a word of either of those 
circumstances should have been mentioned to those elders. But 
so far was the Apostle from mentioning their subordination unto, 
or support of the authority of young Timothy, that he enjoins 
them,—' Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you titiaKoirov? bishops, to feed 
the Church of God,' &c. But as not a word i$ said of leaving 
Timothy at Miletus, so it is improbable that he should have 
parted from Paul there, because he appears to have been 
of the company of the Apostle when he arrived at Rome, 
where he is joined with him in the letters which have been 
mentioned. 

u Others allege that Paul visited Ephesus after his first imprU 
sonment, left Timothy there, went into Macedonia, and frorr* 
thence wrote to him his first letter. They build upon the cir- 
cumstances, that whilst at Rome he had written to Philemon 
to prepare him lodgings at Golosse; and that he had told the 
Philippians, by letter, he trusted he should shortly come tQ 
them. 

" This opinion is much more respectable than either of the 
former ; and although several of the fathers have positively 
asserted, what is incompatible with it, that Paul went into 
Spain after his first imprisonment, according to his purpose 
expressed, Rom. xv. 28, yet, however credible these holy men 
were, their conjectures deserve often but little regard. That 
Paul was at Philippi after his imprisonment is probable, because 
he left Erastus at Corinth. 2 Tim. iv. 20. Also he may have 
been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at. Miletus 5 but the place 
was Miletum. Ibid. He entertained a purpose subsequent to 
those, of visiting Judea with Timothy. Heb. xiii. 23. This may 
have been first accomplished, and Timothy left in the neighbor- 
7* 



78 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

hood of Troas, where he remained till the second epistle was 
sent to him. But if these purposes were effectuated, which is 
matter of uncertainty, there is not a word to prove even an 
intention to visit Ephesus. The letter to the Ephesians neither 
mentions Timothy, nor any coming of Paul. But Tyehicus, a 
faithful minister of the Lord, and companion of the Apostle, was 
named as sent to them. Eph. vi. 21. To the Ephesians Paul 
had said, that he knew they should ' see his face no more,' and 
it is nowhere shown that they did, The supposition that 
nevertheless Paul afterward went to Ephesus with Timothy, 
left him there, with the request to tarry till he should return to 
him, and then went into Macedonia, and wrote his first epistle 
to Timothy, is entirely gratuitous, and without the least reason 
appearing in any exigencies of the Ephesian church, which had 
had three years of Paul's labors, and had been afterward long 
blessed with the regular administration of the ordinances by 
pastors of their own, besides help from Tychicus, and perhaps 
others. 

" If Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, it is an 
affirmative, and ought to be proved. But Paul tells the presby- 
ters of Ephesus, at Miletus, that the Holy Ghost had made them 
bishops (fwq-KOTrovf) of that church. Those elders had previously 
received the powers which were necessary to ordaining others ; 
on Timothy a similar presbytery laid their hands at his ordina- 
tion. If this circumstance will not show that a presbytery 
could have ordained an evangelist, an apostle not being present, 
because evangelists were extraordinary officers of a higher 
grade ; yet it must prove that a presbytery have some power to 
ordain. " They were the highest fixed officers in a church, and 
the power of ordination was necessary to their succession. 
They could not have been appointed coadjutors to Timothy, 
in the ordination of themselves. And it does not appear 
they were ordained before the riot, when he was left at Ephe- 
sus. If thus, there were no officers in that church when Paul 
left it, the direction to Timothy, who was an evangelist, to 
ordain bishops, that is, elders in Ephesus, was to do no more 
than his duty ; which, when accomplished in any church, gave 
such bishops or elders power to continue the succession. If the 
presbyters of particular churches had not the power of ordina- 
tion, there has been no succession in the Church of Christ 
since the deaths of the apostles and evangelists ; for their offices 
expired with them, and there were no officers of a higher order. 
The office of Timothy was given to him prior to his visiting 
Ephesus. The duty assigned him was afterward declared to 
be the work of an evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. His appointment 
to Ephesus was temporary, being limited, at the furthest, to the 
time when Paul should come to him ; but an earlier period of 
its termination was evidently left to his discretion, which he 
exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. Thus there was 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 79 

a disruption of the connexion, if any had been fixed, but none 
such was intended; the epistle was neither a commission, 
nor an ordination, but a mere letter of instruction, directing 
him in the discharge of his high and important office of 
evangelist. 

"If Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, which is not 
recorded in the Scriptures, and died there, it will not establish 
that he ever exercised, or had any other office than that of an 
evangelist." 

5. The claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, is one that 
must be made out by Episcopalians from the New Testament. 
But this claim has not been made out, nor can it ever be. 

6. The epistle to the Ephesians shows further, that at the 
time of writing that, there was no such bishop at Ephesus. 
Though the Apostle herein gives the church various instruc- 
tions about the relations which existed, there is not the slightest 
hint that Timothy was there ; nor is there the least intimation 
that any such officer ever had been, or ever would be set over 
them. 

Now, if it cannot be made out that Timothy was bishop of 
Ephesus; if the point is not established beyond a doubt, then in 
reading Paul's charge to the elders at Miletus, we are to regard 
them as intrusted with the care of the church at Ephesus. It is 
not necessary to our argument to inquire whether they were 
ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as to 
rule. All that is incumbent on us, is to show that the New 
Testament does not warrant the assumption that they were 
subject to a diocesan bishop. We affirm, therefore, simply, that 
Paul addressed them as intrusted with the spiritual instruction 
and government of the church of Ephesus, without any refer- 
ence whatever to any person, either then or afterward placed 
over them, as superior in ministerial rights and powers. And 
this point is conclusively established by two additional consider- 
ations; first, that they are expressly called bishops, ImcKdirovs, 
themselves, a most remarkable appellation if the Apostle meant 
to have them understand that they were to be under the 
administration of another bishop of superior ministerial powers 
and rights ; and secondly, that they are expressly intrusted 
with the whole spiritual charge of the church, *oi(iaivuv rhv 
UicXTjfftav kt\. But every thing in this case is fully met by the 
supposition that they were invested with the simple power of 
riding. Dr. Onderdonk himself admits that the word translated 
" feed," voinabuv, may be rendered to " rule." p. 37. And if this 
point be conceded, the idea that they were elders, in the Pres- 
byterian sense, is all that can be proved from the passage. It is 
essential to the argument of Episcopalians, that they should be 
able to make out that these elders not only ruled, but also 
preached the Gospel, and performed the other functions of their 
" second order" of clergy. 



80 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

Let us now gather the results of our investigation, and dispose 
of the case of Timothy. We have* shown that he was not an 
apostle. We have further shown that he was not bishop of 
Ephesus. We have thus destroyed the claim of the permanency 
of the apostolic office, so far as Timothy is concerned. And we 
now insist, that the readers of the New Testament, they who 
wish to defend Episcopacy by " Scripture," should read the two 
epistles to Timothy, without the vain and illusory supposition 
that he was bishop of Ephesus. Agreeing with Dr. Onderdonk, 
that this point must be settled by the New Testament, and that 
*' no argument is loorth taking into the account which has 
not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic — the scrip- 
tural evidence of Episcopacy " (p. 3,) we now insist that these 
epistles should be read without being interpreted by the unsup- 
ported position that Timothy was the permanent bishop of 
Ephesus. We insist, moreover, that that supposition should not 
be admitted to influence the interpretation. With this matter 
clear before us, how stands the case in these two epistles ? We 
answer, thus : — 

(1.) Timothy was sent to Ephesus for especial purpose, — to 
allay contentions, and prevent the spreading of false doctrine. 
1 Tim. i. 3. (2.) This was to be temporary, 1 Tim. i. 3 ; comp. 
iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 13. (3.) He was intrusted with the right of ordi- 
nation, as all ministers of the Gospel are, and with the authority 
of government. 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19-21; v. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
(4.) Laying out of view the gratuitous supposition that he was 
bishop of Ephesus, the charge given to Timothy was just such 
a one as would be given to any minister of the Gospel author- 
ized to preach, to ordain, to administer the ordinances of the 
Church, and its discipline. It is just such as is given now to 
men who hold to the doctrine of ministerial parity. The 
< ( charges" which are given to Presbyterian and Congregational 
ministers at ordination, are almost uniformly couched in the 
same language which is used by Paul in addressing Timothy ; 
nor is there any thing in those epistles which may not be, 
and which is not, in fact, often addressed to ministers on such 
occasions. With just as much propriety might some antiqua- 
rian, hereafter, — some future advocate for Episcopacy, — collect 
together the charges now given to ministers, and appeal to 
them as proof that the churches in New-England, and among 
Presbyterians, were Episcopal^ as to appeal now to the epistles 
to Timothy, to prove his office as a prelate. (5.) The epistles 
themselves contain evidence of the falsehood of the supposition 
that there was an order of men superior to the presbyters in 
" ministerial powers and rights.* 5 There are but two orders of 
ministers spoken of or alluded to in the epistles, — bishops and 
deacons. There is not the slightest allusion to any other order. 
We call the attention of our readers here, to an emphatic 
remark of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 12 ; " All that we read in the 
New Testament concerning ' bishops,' is to be regarded as per 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 81 

taining to the 'middle grade ;' i. e. nothing in these epistles, or 
elsewhere, where this term is used, has any reference to a rank 
of ministers superior " in ministerial powers and rights." The 
case here, then, by the supposition of the Episcopalians, is this. 
Two epistles are addressed by an apostle to a successor of the 
apostles, designated as such, to retain and perpetuate the same 
rank, and powers. Those epistles are designed to instruct hirn 
in the organization and government of the churches. They 
contain ample information, and somewhat protracted discussions 
on the following topics: The office of a presbyter. The qualifica- 
tions for that office. The office of the deacons. The qualifica- 
tions for that office. The qualifications of deacons' wipes. I Tim. 
iii. The proper discipline of an elder. The qualifications of 
those who were to be admitted to the office of deaconesses. 
1 Tim. v. The duties of masters and servants. I Tim. vL The 
duties of laymen. 1 Tim. ii. 8. And of Christian females. 1 Tim. 
ii. 9-11. Nay, they contain directions about the Apostle's cloak, 
and his parchments ; (2 Tim. iv. 13;) but from the beginning 
to the end, not one single syllable respecting the existence o( a 
grade of officers in the Church superior " in ministerial rights 
and powers ;" not a word about their qualifications, of the mode 
of ordaining or consecrating them, or of Timothy's fraternal 
intercourse with his brother prelates ; nothing about the subjec- 
tion of the priesthood to them, or of their peculiar functions of 
confirmation and superintendence. In one word, taking these 
epistles by themselves, no man would dream that there were 
any such officers in existence. We ask now, whether any can- 
did reader of the New Testament can believe that there were 
any such officers ; and that two epistles could have been written? 
in these circumstances, without the slightest allusion to their 
existence or powers ? l£ Credat Judaus Apella." We ask 
whether there can be found now, among all the charges which 
Episcopal bishops have given to their clergy, any two in which 
there shall not also be found some allusion to the " primitive 
and apostolic order" of bishops in the churches? It remains 
for our eyes to be blessed with the sight of one Episcopal 
charge, reminding us, in this respect, of the charges of Paul to 
Timothy. 

We now take our leave of the case of Timothy. The case of 
Titus, the next in order, pp. 26, 27, we must despatch in fewer 
words. The argument of Dr. Onderdonk, in defence of the 
claim respecting Titus, does not vary materially from that used 
in reference to Timothy, p. 20. It is, that he was left in Crete 
to ordain elders in every city, and that the powers of " ordi- 
nation, admonition, and rejection, are all committed to Titus 
personally." Titus i. 6-9; iii. 10. The only point here which 
requires a moment's examination, in addition to what we have 
said on the case of Timothy, is the purpose for which he was 
left at Crete. Titus i. 5. The claim of the Episcopalians here is, 
that this indicates such a perseverance in the " distinction 



82 



REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 



between elders and a grade superior to them," as to prove that 
it was "to be a permanent arrangement." p. 23. In other 
words, Titus was to be a permanent bishop of Crete, superior to 
the elders " in ministerial rights and powers." This claim it is 
necessary for them to establish from the New Testament. If there 
are any intimations that it was not designed to be permanent, 
they will be fatal to their argument. We affirm, then, in oppo- 
sition to this claim, that the case is fully met by the supposition 
that Titus was an extraordinary officer, like Timothy at 
Ephesus, appointed for a specific purpose. 1. The appointment 
itself looks as if this was the design. Paul had himself com- 
menced a work there, which from some cause he was unable to 
complete. That work he left Titus to finish. As it cannot be 
pretended that Paul had any purpose of becoming the perma- 
nent bishop of Crete ; so it cannot be pretended that Titus' 
being left to complete what Paul had begun, is proof that Paul 
expected that Titus would be permanent bishop. An appointment 
to complete a work which is begun by another, when the ori- 
ginal designer did not contemplate a permanent employment, 
cannot surely be adduced in proof of a permanent office. If I 
am employed to complete an edifice which is commenced, it 
4oes not suppose that I am to labor at it all my life ; still less,, 
that I am to have successors in the undertaking. We presume 
that this passage, to most unbiassed minds, would imply that 
Paul expected Titus, after having completed what he had left him 
to do, should leave the island of Crete, and accompany him in hia 
travels. 2. That this was the fact ; that he had no expectation 
that Titus would be a permanent bishop of Crete, superior in 
" ministerial rights and powers," is perfectly apparent from the 4 
direction in this same epistle, ch. iii. 12, " When I shall send 
Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me at 
Nicopolis." Here we find conclusive proof, that the arrange- 
ment respecting Titus in Crete was a temporary arrangement. 
To suppose the contrary, is to maintain a position in the very 
face of the directions of the Apostle. Every thing in the case 
shows that he was an extraordinary officer, appointed for a spe- 
cific purpose ; and that when that work was effected, which the 
Apostle supposed would be soon, he was to resume his station 
as the travelling companion and fellow-laborer of the Apostle. 
3. That this was the general character of Titus; that he was so 
regarded by Paul, as his companion, and very valuable to him 
in his work, is further apparent from 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ; vii. 6-13. 
In the former passage he says, that he expected to meet him at 
Troas, and intimates that his presence and help were very 
necessary for him. u I had no rest in my spirit, because I found 
not Titus my brother." In the latter place, (2 Cor. vii. 6-13,) 
we find him the companion of the Apostle Paul, in Philippi. 
Again, (2 Cor. xii. 18,) we find him employed on a special 
embassy to the Church in Corinth, in respect to the collection 
for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Comp. Rom. xv. 26. And 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 83 

again we find him on a mission to Dalmatian 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
Assuredly these various migrations and employments do not 
appear as if he was designed by the Apostle as the permanent 
bishop of Crete. 4. It is to be presumed that Titus regarded 
the apostolic mandate ; (Titus iii. 12 ;) that he left Crete in 
accordance with PauPs request ; and as there is no intimation 
that he returned, as the New Testament throws no light on that 
point, as indeed there is not the slightest proof any where, that 
he died there, we come to the conclusion that he was employed 
for a temporary purpose, and that having accomplished it, he 
resumed his situation as the companion of Paul. Compare Gal. 
ii. 1. It must be admitted, on all hands, that the Episcopalian 
cannot prove the contrary. Since, moreover, our supposition 
meets all the circumstances of the case as well as his, and we 
are able to show that this was the general character of the labors 
of Titus, we shall dismiss his case also. 

The last argument of Dr. Onderdonk is derived from the 
epistles to the seven churches of Asia. Rev. ii., iii. This argu- 
ment is embodied in the following position: "Each of those 
churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but 
through its- J angel,' or chief officer ; this alone is a very strong 
argument against parity in favor of Episcopacy. " " One of those 
churches is Ephesus ; and when we read concerning its angel, 
' Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, 
and hast found them liars, 5 do we require further evidence that 
what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the year 65, in 
regard to the supreme right of discipline over the clergy, the same 
was its chief officer when this book was written, in 96 ?" The 
singular number, it is added, is used emphatically in the address 
to each of the angels, and " the individual called l the angel,' is, 
in each case, identified with his church, and his church with 
him." pp. 27, 28. 

This is the argument ; and this is the whole of it. We have 
sought diligently to see its bearing; but our labor in doing it has 
not been crowned with very flattering success. We can see, indeed, 
that those churches were addressed through their ministers, or 
pastors, called " angels ;" but it requires more penetration than 
we profess to have, to discover how this bears on the precise 
point, that there is an order of men superior to others " in 
ministerial rights and powers." Such an argument can be 
founded only on the following assumptions: 1. That there was 
an inferior body of clergymen, called here " clergy at large." 
Assuming' this point, it would not be difficult to make out an 
argument from the address " to the angel." But this is a point 
to be proved, not to be assumed. We would respectfully ask 
the writer of this tract, where he finds an intimation of the 
existence of an order of "clergy at large" in these churches. 
In the epistles themselves there is not the slightest hint of the 
existence of any such personages distinct from " the angels." 
Nay, the very style of address is strong presumption that 



84 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

there were not any such inferior clergymen. The only mention 
which occurs, is of the angel and the church. We hear nothing 
of an intermediate order; nothing of any supremacy of "the 
angel" over "the clergy at large;" not the least intimation of 
any duty to be performed by the supposed prelatical " angel" 
toward the inferior presbyters. Why is a reference to them 
omitted, if they had any existence ? Is it customary, in address- 
ing "bishops" now, to omit all reference to their duties over the 
inferior " clergy at large ?" This is a point of too much conse- 
quence to be left now so unguarded ; and accordingly the rights 
and duties of the order, superior "in ministerial rights and 
powers," are sedulously marked out and inculcated.* 2. It must 
be assumed, in this argument, that there were in each of those 
cities more churches than one ; that there was a circle, or con- 
federation of churches, that would answer to the modern notion 
of a diocese, over which " the clergy at large," of inferior 
" ministerial rights and powers," might exercise a modified 
jurisdiction. If this is not assumed, the argument has no force ; 
since if there were but one church in each of those cities, the 
" angel" was not a bishop in the Episcopal sense, but a pastor in 
the ordinary acceptation. Now this is a point, which, in an 
argument like this, should not be assumed, it should be prove d, 
or at least rendered highly probable from the New Testament. 
But there is not the slightest hint of any such divided and scat- 
tered diocesan organization. In each instance the church is 
addressed as one and undivided. " The angel of the church," — 
not the churches,—" of Ephesus;" Rev. ii. 1. "The angel of 
the church in Smyrna ;" ii. 8 : " the angel of the church at 
Thyatira; ii. 18: "the angel of the church in Sardis;" iii. 1, 
&c. In every instance the address is uniform. The point of 
inquiry now is, whether in this address the Saviour meant to 
intimate that there was a plurality of churches, an ecclesiastical, 
diocesan organization? This is a point for Episcopalians to 
prove, not to assume. Light may be thrown on it by comparing 
it with other places where a church is spoken of. The pre- 
sumption is directly against the Episcopalians. It is that the 
Apostles would not organize separate churches in a single city ; 
and that if it were done they would be specified as the churches. 
Accordingly, we learn that the Apostle organized " a church" 
at Corinth. I Cor. i. 1, 2. Thus, also, at Antioch. Acts xiii. 1. 
Thus, also, at Laodicea. Col. iv. 16. And in the epistle to one 
of the very churches under consideration, that at Ephesus, it is 
mentioned not as the churches of Ephesus, but as the church. 
Acts xx. 28. When Paul addressed this same church in an 
epistle, it was directed, not to the churches, but to the saints at 
Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there were distinct churches 



* We of course lay out of view, here, the case of the " elders at Ephesus," as 
being already disposed of; and as not being relevant to Dr. Onderdonk's argument, 
since that they were "clergy at large," is to be proved, not assumed. 



• 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 85 

organized, there is a specific mention of the fact of the plu- 
rality. They are mentioned as being many. Thus, Acts 
xv. 41 : " Paul went through Syria confirming (i. e. strength- 
ening, establishing,) the churches." Rom. xvi. 4: " The churches 
of the Gentiles." 1 Cor. xvi. 1 : " The churches of Galatia. 
Ver. 19 : " The churches of Asia. 2 Cor. viii. 1 : " The churches 
in Macedonia. See also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23 ; xi. 8 ; Gal. i. 22 ; 
Rev. i. 4. Now it is neither proved that there was a body of 
f clergy at large," nor that there were separate churches in 
each of those cities ; we ask, What is the force of the argument 
of Dr. Onderdonk from this case? How does it bear on the 
point at issue ? What has it to do with the subject ? 

With one or two additional remarks, we shall dismiss this 
point. The first is, that it cannot be argued from the term 
angel, given to those ministers, that they were Episcopal bish- 
ops. That term, as is well known, has no such exclusive appli- 
cability to a prelate. It is nowhere else applied to the ministers 
of religion ; and its original signification, " a messenger," or its 
usual application to celestial spirits, has no special adaptedness 
to an Episcopal bishop. An ordinary pastor, — a messenger 
sent from God ; a spiritual guide, and friend of the church, will 
as fully express its sense, as the application to a prelate. With- 
out invidiousness, we may observe, that prelates have not usually 
evinced any such extraordinary sanctity, or devotion, as to 
appropriate this title to themselves alone by prescriptive right. 
Our other remark is, that the supposition that these angels 
were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each 
other, and with all others, will fully meet every thing which is 
said of them in the Book of Revelation. This supposition, too, 
will meet the addresses made to them, better than the assump- 
tion that they were prelates. Their union, as Dr. Onderdonk 
remarks, to the church is intimate. " The angel is in each case 
identified with his church, and his church with him." Now to 
which does this remark best apply,— to the tender, intimate, 
endearing relation of a pastor with his people ; to the blending 
of their feelings, interests, and destiny, when he is with them 
continually ; when he meets them each week in the sanctuary ; 
when he administers to them the bread of life ; goes into their 
abodes when they are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the 
grave : or does it best apply to the union subsisting between 
the people of an extended diocese, — to the formal, unfrequent, 
and, in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a 
diocesan bishop ; to the kind of connexion formed between a 
people scattered into many churches, who are visited at intervals 
of a year, or more, by one claiming " a superiority in ministerial 
rights and powers," robed in lawn, and perhaps with the crosier 
and mitre, as emblematical of office, state, and power ; who 
must be a stranger to the ten thousand tender ties of endearment, 
which bind as one the hearts of a pastor and his people ? To our 
minds it seems clear that the account which Dr. Onderdonk has 
8 



86 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

given of the " identity" of the angel and the church, applies to 
the former, and not to the latter. It speaks the sentiments of 
our heart, as respects the union of a pastor and people. And 
while we would not allow ourselves to speak with disrespect of 
the Episcopal office, we still feel that the language of the 
Saviour, by the mild and gentle John, to the churches of Asia, 
breathes far more of the endearing " identity" of the pastoral 
relation, than it does of the comparatively cold, and distant 
functions of one, who, in all other lands but this, has been invested 
with his office by the imposing ceremony of enthroning ', and 
who has borne, less as badges of affection than of authority, the 
crosier and the mitre. 

We have now gone entirely through with the argument of 
Dr. Onderdonk, in proof that there is an order of men superior 
"in ministerial rank and powers." We have intended to do 
justice to his proofs, and we have presented the whole of them. 

Our readers have all that Episcopalians rely on from the 
Scriptures, in vindication of the existence of such an order of 
men. It will be remembered that the burden of proof lies on 
them. They advance a claim which is indispensable to the 
existence of their ecclesiastical polity. These are the arguments 
on which they rely. Whether their arguments justify the lan- 
guage of assumption which we sometimes hear ; whether they are 
such as to render appropriate the description of all people but 
the members of Episcopal churches, as left to "theuncovenanted 
mercies of God ;"* whether they are such as to prompt, legiti- 
mately, to a very frequent reference to " the primitive and 
apostolic order" of the ministry; or to the modest use of the 
term " the Church," with an exclusive reference to themselves, 
must now be left to the judgment of our readers. 

It was our intention, originally, to have gone somewhat at 
length into a defence of the scripture doctrine of ministerial 
parity. But the unexpected length of our article admonishes us 
to close. We are the less dissatisfied with this admonition, because 
we conceive the point already made out. If Episcopalians 
cannot make good their claims in reference to their bishop, it 
follows of course that ministers are on an equality. The whole 
argument is concentrated in their claim. We take our stand 



* We do not charge Dr. Onderdonk with having any such views and feelings. 
We have great pleasure in recording his dissent from the use of such language, and 
from such consequences, p. 6. "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous diffi- 
culty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all Non-episcopal denomina- 
tions. By the present writer this consequence is not allowed." We simply state 
this, with high gratificatidn. We are happy also that we are not called upon to 
reconcile the admission with the claim set up in this tract, that " the authority of 
Episcopacy is permanent, down to the present age of the world ;" (p. 40 ;) that the 
obligation of Christians to support bishops, i.e. to conform to Episcopacy, is not 
ended ; (p. 40 ;) that of " any two ministries now existing, the former (Episcopacy) 
is obligatory, to the exclusion of the latter ; (parity, p. 39 ;) and that the position 
cannot be evaded, that Episcopacy is permanently binding^ * even to the end of the 
world.' » p. 39. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 87 

here. It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in 
the Church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with singular 
boldness, in not a few instances with professed, and in all with 
real exclusiveness, maintain that this power lies only in the 
bishop. They advance a claim to certain rights and powers ; 
and if that claim is not made out, the argument is at an end. 
The power of ordination must remain with those over whom 
they have set up the power of jurisdiction and control. This 
claim, as we have seen, is not made out. If from the authority 
of the New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing the 
ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, it follows 
that the clergy remain on an equality. 

On this point, also, they are compelled, as we conceive, to 
admit the whole of our argument. So manifest is it, that the 
sacred writers knew of no such distinction; that they regarded 
all ministers of the Gospel as on a level ; that they used the 
same name in describing the functions of all ; that they addressed 
all as having the same Episcopal, or pastoral supervision, that 
the Episcopalians, after no small reluctance, are compelled 
at last to admit it. They are driven to the conclusion that the 
term bishop in the New Testament, does not in a single instance 
designate any such officer as now claims exclusively that title. 
Thus Dr. Onderdonk says, that " that name (bishop) is there, 
(i. e. in the New Testament) given to the middle order, or pres- 
byters ; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning 
1 bishops,' (including of course the words c overseers' and ' over* 
sight] which have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as 
pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic 
age that the name i bishop 5 was taken from the second order 
and appropriated to the first." p. 12. This admission we regard 
as of inestimable value. So we believe, and so we teach. We 
insist, therefore, that the name bishop should be restored to its 
primitive standing. If men lay claim to a higher rank than is 
properly expressed in the New Testament by this word, we 
insist that they should assume the name apostles. As they 
regard themselves as the successors of the apostles; as they 
claim that Timothy, Titus, Andronicus, Junia, were called apos- 
tles, why should not the name be retained? The Christian 
community could then better appreciate the force of their claims, 
and understand the nature of the argument. We venture to 
say, that if the name " apostles" were assumed by those who 
claim that they are their successors, Episcopacy would be soon 
u shorn of its beams," and that the Christian world would dis- 
abuse itself of the belief in the scriptural authority of any such 
class of men. We admit that if " the thing sought" (p. 12) were 
to be found in the Scriptures, we would not engage in a contro- 
versy about the mere name. But we maintain that the fact here 
conceded is strong presumptive proof that " the thing sought" 
is not there. The name, therefore, is to be given up ; that is, 
it is conceded by Episcopalians, that the name bishop does not 



88 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY* 

any where in the New Testament designate any such class of 
men as are now clothed with the Episcopal office. 

We remark, now, that the thing itself 'is practically abandoned 
by Episcopalians themselves. If other denominations can be 
true churches, (see the remark on p. 6, that the Episcopal claims 
do not " unchurch all Non-episcopal denominations,") then their 
ministers can be true ministers, and their ordinances valid ordi- 
nances. Their ministers may be ordained without the impo- 
sition of the hands of " a bishop ;" and thus the whole claim is 
abandoned. For what constitutes " Non-episcopal denomina- 
tions" churches, unless they have a valid ministry, and valid 
ordinances ? Still further. It is probably known to our readers, 
that even ordination is never performed in the Episcopal Church 
by the bishop alone. In the " Form and Manner of Ordering 
Priests," the following direction is given. " The bishop with 
the priests [presbyters] present, shall lay their hands severally 
upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priest- 
hood; the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying: 
Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in 
the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition 
of our hands,' 1 &c. We know that there is among them a 
difference of opinion about the reason why this is done. One 
portion regard the bishop as the only source of authority.* The 
other suppose that the presence and act of the presbyters express 
the assent and confidence of the churches, and that it is essential 
to a valid ordination. But, whichever opinion is maintained, it 
is, in fact, a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is an unmeaning 
and idle ceremony ; and the presence of the presbyters is mere 
pageantry and pomp. 

We have now passed through the argument. Could we enter 
farther into it, we could prove, we think, positively, that there 
were no ministers in the apostolic churches superior to pres- 
byters "in ministerial powers and rights;" and that a pres- 
bytery did actually engage in an ordination, and even in the 
case of Timothy.f But our argument does not require it, nor 
have we room. We have examined the whole of the claims 
of Episcopalians, derived from the New Testament. Our readers 
will now judge of the validity of those claims. We close, as 
Dr. Onderdonk began, by saying, that if the claim is not made 
out on scriptural authority, it has no force, or binding obligation 
on mankind. 

Who can resist the impression, that if the New Testament 
had been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episco- 
pacy would long since have ceased to urge its claims, and have 
sunk away, with other dynasties and dominations, from the 
notice of mankind '\ On the basis which we have now examined, 
this vast superstructure, this system which has heretofore spread 
over the entire Christian world, this system which, in some 

* Hooker's Ecc. Pol. book yii. § 6. t 1 Tim. i\\ 14. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 89 

periods at least, has advanced most arrogant claims, has been 
reared^ The world, for ages, has been called to submit to vari- 
ous modifications of the Episcopal power. The world, with the 
single exceptions of the Waldenses and Albigenses, did for ages 
submit to its authority. The prelatical domination rose on the 
ruins of the liberties of cities, states, and nations, till all the 
power of the Christian world was concentrated in the hands of 
one man — " the servant of the servants of God !" The exercise 
of that power in his hands is well known. Equally arrogant 
have been its claims in other modifications. The authority has 
been deemed necessary for the suppression of divisions and 
heresies. " The prelates," says Milton, " as they would have it 
thought, are the only mauls of schism." That power was felt 
in the days when Puritan piety rose to bless mankind, and to 
advance just notions of civil and religious liberty. Streams of 
blood have flowed, and tears of anguish have been shed, and: 
thousands of holy men have been doomed to poverty, and want, 
and imprisonment, and tears, as the result of those claims to 
supremacy and validity m the Church of God. It may surprise 
our readers to learn, that all the authority from the Bible which 
could be adduced in favor of these enormous claims, has now 
been submitted to their observation. . And we cannot repress; 
the melancholy emotions of our hearts, at the thought that such 
power has been claimed, and such domination exercised by man,, 
on so slender authority as this ! 

We have little love for controversy — we have none for 
denunciation. We have no war to wage with Episcopacy. 
We know, we deeply feel, that much may be said in favor of it, 
apart from the claim which has been set up for its authority 
from the New Testament. Its past history, in> some respects,, 
makes us weep ; in others, it is the source of sincere- rejoicing 
and praise. We cannot forget, indeed, its assumptions of power,. 
or hide from our eyes the days of the Papacy, when it clothed 
in sackcloth the Christian world. We cannot forget the days, 
not few, or unimportant, in its history, when even as a part of 
the Protestant religion, it has brought " a numb and chill stupid- 
ity of soul, an inactive blindness of mind, uporrthe people by its 
leaden doctrine ;" we cannot forget u the frozen captivity" of 
the Church, " in the bondage of prelates ;"* nor can we remove 
from our remembrance the sufferings of the Puritans, and the 
bloody scenes in Scotland. But we do not charge this on the 
Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that it is essential 
to its existence. We do not believe that it is its inevitable tend- 
ency. With more grateful feelings, we recall other events of 
its history. We associate it with the brightest and happiest 
days of religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. We 
remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the Church in 
England took its firm stand against the Papacy; and that this 

* Milton. 

8* 



90 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor, from the 
dark night of ages. We remember the name of Cranmer,— 
Cranmer, first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it 
was by his steady and unerring hand, that, under God, the pure 
Church of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and 
distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember that God 
watched over that wonderful man; that he gave this distin- 
guished prelate access to the heart of one of the most capricious, 
cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that 
has disgraced the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, 
and his Church, conducted Henry, as " by a hook in the nose," 
and made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when 
faithful to none else ; so that, perhaps, the only redeeming trait 
in the character of Henry, is his fidelity to this first British 
prelate under the Reformation.* The world will not soon forget 
the names of Latimer, and Ridley, and Rodgers, and Bradford j 
names associated, in the feelings of Christians, with the long* 
list of ancient confessors " of whom the world was not 
worthy," and who did honor to entire ages of mankind, by seal- 
ing their attachment to the Son of God on the rack, or amid 
the flames. Nor can we forget that we owe to Episcopacy 
that which fills our minds with gratitude and praise, when we 
look for examples of consecrated talent, and elegant literature, 
and humble devoted piety. While men honor elevated Christian 
feeling ; while they revere sound learning ; while they render 
tribute to clear and profound reasoning, they will not forget the 
names of Barrow and Taylor-, of Tillotson, and Hooker, and 
Butler ; — and when they think of humble, pure, sweet, heavenly 
piety, their minds will* recur instinctively to the name of Leigh- 
ton. Such names, with a host of others, do honor to the world. 
When we think of them, we have it not in our hearts to utter 
one word against a Church which has thus done honor to our 
race, and to our common Christianity. 

Such we wish Episcopacy still to bo. We have always 
thought that there are Christian minds and hearts that would 
find more edification in the forms of worship in that Church, 
than in any other. We regard it as adapted to call forth Christian 
energy, that might otherwise be dormant. We do not grieve 
that the Church is divided into diiferent denominations. To all 
who hold essential truth, we bid God speed ; and for all such 
we lift our humble supplications to the God of all mercy, that 
he will make them the tneans of spreading the Gospel around 



It may be prpper here to remark, that Cranmer by no means entertained the 
modern views of the scriptural authority of bishops. He would not have coincided 
with the claims of the tract which is now passing under our review. He maintained 
" that the appointment to spiritual offices belongs indifferently to bishops, to princes, 
or to the peppje, according to the pressure of existing circumstances. He affirmed 
the original identity of bishops and presbyters ; and contended that nothing more 
than mere election, or appointment, is essential to the sacerdotal office, without, con- 
secration or any other solemnity. — Le Bas } Life of Grcmmer, vol. i. p. 197„ 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 91 

the globe. We ourselves could live and labor in friendliness 
and love, in the bosom of the Episcopal Church. While we 
have an honest preference for another department of the great 
field of Christian action; while providential circumstances, and the 
suggestions of our own hearts and minds, have conducted us to 
a different field of labor ; we have never doubted that many of 
the purest flames of devotion that rise from the earth, ascend 
from the altars of the Episcopal Church, and that many of the 
purest spirits that the earth contains, minister at those altars, or 
breathe forth their prayers and praises in language consecrated 
by the use of piety for centuries. 

We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy. We wish 
her not to assume arrogant claims. We wish her not to utter 
the language of denunciation. We wish her to follow the 
guidance of the distinguished minister of her Church, whose 
book we are reviewing, in not attempting to " unchurch" other 
denominations, We wish her to fall in with, or to go in advance 
of others, in the spirit of the age. Our desire is that she may 
become throughout, — as we rejoice she is increasingly becom- 
ing, —the warm, devoted friend of revivals, and missionary 
operations. She is consolidated ; well marshalled ; under an 
efficient system of laws ; and pre-eminently fitted for powerful 
action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her 
what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with 
her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with 
her power of maintaining the position which she takes; and 
with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learn- 
ing, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all 
other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated 
world. We would even rejoice to see her who was first in the 
field at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when 
the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power 5 
and whatever positions may be assigned to other denominations, 
we have no doubt that the Episcopal Church is destined yet to 
bfi, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and to consecrate 
her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual aggres- 
sion on the territories of sin and of death* 



ANSWER TO A REVIEW 



OF 



"EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE." 



Odr readers will recollect that at various periods since this 
tract first appeared, now more than three years ago, we have 
reminded all concerned that it had not been answered. At length, 
however, a champion appears, to take up the gauntlet thrown 
down, and do battle for — really we cannot say for what — 
but against the claims of Episcopacy. He advances to the 
field with the courtesy of a perfect knight, saying so many 
civil things of his opponent, that we regret that the withholding 
of his name deprives us of the opportunity of being personally 
courteous in return. This, however, we can see, though his 
armor is closed, and this we say with unfeigned gratification, 
that he is a gentleman of elevated feelings and honorable 
principles. 

And now to the discussion. The Reviewer has fixed upon one- 
point in the line of argument in the tract, and on it directed his 
main attack. Our reply must, of course, correspond. First, 
however, we offer some preliminary observations. 

Because the author of the tract* rested the claims of Episco- 
pacy finally on Scripture — because he fills a high office in the 
Church — and because the tract is issued by so prominent aa 
Episcopal institution as the "Press," the Reviewer seems to 
think that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not 
drawn directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The author 
of the tract, in his sermon at the consecration of the four bishops 
in October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other 
grounds, on that of there being several grades of office in the 
priesthoods of alL religions, false as well as true,, and in all civil 
magistracies and other official structures, — and, in his late charge, 
he adverted to the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. 
And the " Press," at the time it issued the tract, issued also with 
it, in the " Works on Episcopacy," those of Dr. Bowden and 
Dr. Cooke, which embrace the argument at large. There is no 
reason, therefore, for thinking that, however a single writer 
may use selected arguments in a single publication, either he or 
other Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground they 



* Bishop H, U. Onderdonk. 

{93) 



94 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

have usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this 
subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe 
forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture. And gene- 
ral practice, in regard to distinct grades among officers, throws 
a heavier burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are 
adverse to Episcopacy : this latter topic we shall again notice 
before we close. 

The reviewer thinks that, in discussing the exclusive claims 
of Episcopacy, " the burden of proof lies wholly on its friends. 5 ' 
But the correctness of this assertion depends on the sense in 
which the phrase " burden of proof" is taken. In a loose way, 
it may be said that the burden of proof so far lies on him who 
advances a proposition, i. e. on him who happens to make the 
first assertion in any given discussion, as that he must adduce 
arguments for his opponents to reply to ; and it is sometimes 
one of the arts of controvertists to manoeuvre upon this rule. 
But the rule is only technical : it may further an orderly discus- 
sion, but it does nothing more toward the development of truth. 
We suppose %e reviewer to mean this sense of the phrase, as 
he speaks of nothing more than the " specific assertion" of the 
tract; but, in this sense, the tract fulfilled its duty in giving 
proofs. The " burden of proof" has, however, a meaning far 
more important. It is the opposite of the " presumptive argu- 
ment." In some cases, the presumptive argument is clear, and 
it holds its ground till disproved ; and in such a controversy, 
the burden of proof is a burden indeed. In other cases, it is 
doubtful on which side the presumptive argument lies, and then 
it is a waste of time to talk about the burden of proof. Does the 
reviewer think that the presumptive argument is clearly against 
the exclusive claims of Episcopacy ? Let him go to Ignatius, in 
the age next the apostolic, and read about the " bishop, pres- 
byters, and deacons" — he puts on such language a Presbyterian 
construction— while Episcopalians put on it theirs; does this 
give him a clear presumption ? Does it throw the burden of 
proof on us ? Let him go to the period when the Reformation 
began — then all the Christian world was Episcopal — he excepts, 
though we do not, the Waldenses ; does this grand fact give a 
presumption against Episcopacy? Let him, again, look on 
Christendom now, and estimate the majority of Episcopalians 
as he pleases— -a vast majority it is, by any estimate ; does he 
find in such a state of things any clear consideration that throws 
the burden of proof on the exclusive advocates of the Episcopal 
ministry? We judge not. We rather think it would not be 
difficult to show that this " burden," so far as these topics may 
be allowed to decide it, lies upon the impugners of Episcopacy. 
We therefore most respectfully suggest to the reviewer, that it 
probably lies — on a minority in controversy with a majority, i. e. 
on Non-episcopalians — on those who left Episcopacy at the 
Reformation — on those who, to make Ignatius interpret the 
Scriptures relating to the ministry as they do, adduce, not fact 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 95 

or evidence, or even the historical chain of proof, but merely 
their own interpretation of those Scriptures, as the key to 
Ignatius. 

We were much pleased to find the reviewer agreeing, in the 
main at least, to the exclusion of extraneous arguments from 
this controversy, as proposed and largely insisted on in the 
tract — " to most of the observations under these several heads, 
we give our hearty assent." Yet such is human forgetfulness, 
in even the best of men, that he strays once or oftener into 
every one of these extraneous or inconclusive arguments, as a 
few exemplifications, under the heads given in the tract, will 
show. 1. The notion that Episcopacy is adverse to civil free- 
dom^ is extraneous and irrelevant : does the reviewer " assent" 
to excluding this notion ? He says, " If the New Testament had 
been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episcopacy 
would long since have .... sunk away with other dynasties 
and dominations, from the notice of mankind." 2. Another 
extraneous argument is the accusation that Episcopalians are 
not pious enough : does the reviewer " assent" to putting this 
imputation out of view? He says of Episcopacy, in certain 
former periods, " Even as a part of the Protestant religion, it 
has brought ' a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an inactive 
blindness of mind, upon the people, by its leaden doctrine ;' we 
cannot forget * the frozen captivity' of the Church, l in the 
bondage of prelates.' " 3. That the external appointments of 
Christianity are of inferior moment, is, argues the tract, another 
irrelevant matter : does the reviewer " assent" to having this 
plea set aside? He says, "We regard it as a matter of very 
little moment, in what particular church the spirit is prepared 
for its eternal rest." 4. That some Episcopalians unchurch the 
Non-episcopalian denominations, is an extraneous argument: 
does the reviewer " assent" to keeping it out of the discussion? 

He says, "Whether their arguments are such as to 

render appropriate the description of all people but the members 
of Episcopal Churches, as left to ' the uncovenanted mercies of 
God ;' whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately, ... to 
the modest use of the term ' the Church,' with an exclusive 
reference to themselves* must now be left to the judgment of 
our readers." 5. Referring to authorities, on either side, who 
are thought to have contradicted themselves, is, according to the 
tract, irrelevant, extraneous, and even futile : does the reviewer 
"assent?" He adduces the opinions of Cranmer, concerning 
"the original identity of bishops and presbyters," and that 
neither " consecration, nor any other solemnity," is essential to 
make a minister of Christ; while yet Cranmer sanctioned our 
Ordinal, which declares that God " appointed divers orders of 
ministers in the Church ;" and which decrees that no man shall 



* Twice, in his second paragraph, the reviewer uses the term u the Church,' 
with, apparently, an exclusive reference to Presbyterians. 



06 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

officiate " in this Church," without " Episcopal consecration or 
ordination;" contradiction enough, we apprehend, to set aside 
Cranmer's authority on this point. 6. The tract argued that a 
scriptural "hint or intimation" was enough, in matters of a 
permanent kind, without an explicit command, and that to argue 
otherwise is inconclusive: does the reviewer " assent" to this ? 
He asks repeatedly for "explicit proof" of Episcopacy, and 
thinks that Episcopalians can do nothing without it. Thus, in 
regard to all the six arguments set aside in the tract, the excision 
of which was " assented " to, " mostly " indeed, yet " heartily," 
by the reviewer, he has been so unfortunate as to forget him- 
self, and employ the mutually condemned weapons. We do not 
say that he has employed them unkindly, or, any but the last of 
the six, as essential to his cause ; all we remark is, that those 
who " assent" to that preliminary portion of the tract ought not to 
use them at all. These topics are valueless to the sound reasoner 
— among the weaker brethren, some of them are apt to produce 
irritation. 

Another preliminary remark may be offered. The reviewer 
takes no side on the question of valid ordination. Judging from 
his very flattering notice of the Episcopal Church, he may be an 
Episcopalian in principle, on the ground of expediency. Judg- 
ing from the periodical in which his review appears, he may be 
a Congregationalist in sentiment, and may regard lay orders as 
good. Judging from his writing against the tract, which argues 
only against a Presbyterian ministry, " passing by the feeble 
claim of lay-ordination," he may be a Presbyterian. But he 
makes no profession of his opinion on this subject. He says ; — 
"The question after all might be, whether it was the design of 
the Apostles to establish any particular form of church govern- 
ment," including, of course, any particular rule of ordination — 
and he adds, " This question we do not intend to examine now, 
neither do we design to express any opinion on it." Now he 
has a right, if he chooses, in attacking other opinions, to reserve 
his own ; but it is much the same right that a rifleman has to fight 
behind a tree — it is a lawful act, but not indicative of peculiar 
valor. In the pursuit of abstract truth, the sentiments of the 
investigators are little to the purpose. But when a question has 
immediate reference to 'practical arrangements, it is strictly rele- 
vant to ask an objector to any one system, what system he proposes 
as a substitute; because the issue, when practical, is a complex 
one, including not only the questions raised upon the system 
attacked, but those also that may occur concerning the one 
brought forward in its place. To oppose one plan, and yet 
name no other, is not to treat the matter practically. The 
reviewer says, " If Episcopalians cannot make good their claims 
in reference to the bishop, it follows of course that all ministers 
are on an equality." True, but it does not follow that all called 
ministers are such ; the question would still be open between 
presbyterian ordination, lay-ordination, election to the ministry 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 97 

without ordination or laying on of hands, and assuming the 
office without either election or ordination. Let any one duly 
consider the respective principles of the tract and the review, 
concerning good order in the Church — the one presents a sys- 
tem for maintaining it, the other opposes that system, yet offers 
none whatever in its place, it leaves the ministry open to any 
and every claimant, — let any tine, we say, consider this differ- 
ence between the two productions, and then determine whether 
the tract and its system have not been allowed to hold a 
material advantage by this indecision or this reserve of the 
reviewer. 

While on this point, we must notice a contradiction, or some- 
thing very like one, into which the reviewer has fallen. In one 
paragraph, " It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine 
origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded 
in the Scriptures ; or that Congregationalism has no claims to 
support ; or that Independency is unauthorized ; or even that 
lay-ordination is destitute of direct support" — yet, in another 
paragraph, " It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere 
in the Church a right to ordain." Now, a right to ordain is a 
divine right, be it exercised as it may : if Scripture is so inter- 
preted as to give that right to laymen, or to presbyters, or to 
bishops, the right is rested on Scripture, whether its support be 
" direct" or indirect ; and, if sustained by Scripture, it is of 
"divine origin." The reviewer declares this right to exist 
" somewhere in the Church." Yet he argues that if all kinds of 
ordination were overturned except the Episcopal, it would not 
prove the latter to be of " divine origin." In other words, he 
argues that all sorts of ordinations may be without authority, 
and so the right to ordain exists nowhere, while yet it does exist 
somewhere. If the reviewer denies this conclusion from his 
premises, he must speak more plainly concerning " lay-ordina- 
tion," and say whether it has u ^direct support" in Scripture. 
For ourselves, we think that if there be an ordaining power 
somewhere, yet not in either of the other alleged places of 
deposit, it must be in the bishops. 

And now we proceed to the main objections to the tract, as 
urged by the reviewer. These relate to two points. 1. The as- 
sertion, in the tract, " That the Apostles ordained, all agree." 
2. The inference or assumption, in the tract— after stating the 
distinction between " the apostles and elders," and after show- 
ing that this distinction did not arise from other causes — " It 
follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the 
apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were 
superior to them in ministerial power and rights." 

1. To the assertion, " That the apostles ordained, all agree," 
the reviewer objects, " If this means any thing to the purpose, 
it means that they ordained as apostles ; or that they were set 
apart to the apostolic office for the purpose of ordaining." Fes- 
Una lente } not too fast. Episcopalians believe undoubtedly that 
9 



98 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

they ordained " as apostles," and that they were " set apart 
for the purpose of ordaining," besides other purposes. ' But 
neither of these points were involved in that portion of the 
argument of the tract— where the fact that the apostles 
ordained was mentioned merely as a fact, without regard to 
the why or how. This mere fact was assumed, as agreed to by 
all ; yet it was proved also from Scripture, on a subsequent page. 
Then followed the next proposition in the train, " That elders 
(presbyters) did [ordain], we deny" — which second proposition 
is made good as the tract proceeds — nor does the reviewer gain- 
say it, upon evidence, though he ' thinks' he could, ' if his argu- 
ment required it, or if he had room.' Here, let our readers 
recollect, that the argument of the tract is with Presbyterians 
only, not with those who maintain lay-orders, and that it was of 
course unnecessary to deny that laymen ordained. The facts 
relating to Episcopacy and parity were first to be ascertained, as 
the basis of the argument — the structure to be erected on that 
basis was a different affair. And the two great facts, that apos- 
tles ordained, and that presbyters did not, were so sufficiently 
ascertained in the tract, that the reviewer does not controvert 
either of them, by stating facts of a contradictory sort. To the 
facts only should attention be given in the first place, and no 
construction or reasoning should be intermixed with the develop- 
ment of them. If, after this development of facts, it should be 
argued or denied that the apostles ordained " as apostles," or 
were set apart for that " purpose" among others, very well — only 
let the assertion or denial wait till the foundation is laid. 

The tract, in the portion of it under consideration, draws no 
inference from the two facts mentioned, but proceeds to an 
entirely different line of argument to prove ministerial imparity. 
It quotes the expression, from the record of the council held at 
Jerusalem, " apostles and elders," and asserts that it shows the 
two sets of persons so named to have been as distinct from each 
other, as were the laity from both, in the passage " apostles, and 
elders, and brethren" — and from the former, in the passage 
" apostles and brethren" — adding, " apostles were therefore one 
class, and elders another class, just as the laity were a third 
class." This seems clear enough, nor does the reviewer ques- 
tion it. The tract then proceeds to show, that the apostles were 
not thus distinguished because appointed by Christ personally 
— nor because they had seen our Lord after his resurrection — nor 
only (as the tract further states, though the reviewer forgets that 
it does so,) because they were special witnesses of that event — 
nor because they worked miracles — for sustaining all which 
propositions reasons are given. It then draws the conclusion, 
that the apostles were thus distinguished from the elders because 
they were " superior to them in ministerial power and rights." 
This is the line of argument which introduces the reasoning 
against parity. And it brings us to the second of the main 
objections to the tract, offered by the reviewer. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 99 

2. In bringing this portion of the Episcopal argument to the 
inference mentioned, apostolic pre-eminence, the author of the 
tract says—" It follows, therefore, [from the premises just enu- 
merated,] or at least will not be questioned, that the apostles 
were superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights," 
Here are two assertions—" it follows" — " or it will not be ques- 
tioned" — either is sufficient for the reasoning of the tract. 

The assertion " it follows, 55 means, of course, ' if the previous 
statement holds good ; 5 and that in this case the inference is 
just, the reviewer does not controvert. And it would be difficult 
to do so ; for, so far as we recollect, every other point in which 
distinction could even plausibly be claimed for the apostles, had 
been set aside by the tract, (as the reader will see in our para- 
graph next but one above,) leaving only the one distinction of 
" ministerial 55 superiority. The inference, therefore, that this 
was the distinction implied in the expression " apostles and 
elders, 55 is neither forced nor unreasonable, it follows justly from 
the premises stated. And when it is considered that the distinc- 
tion was made in an ecclesiastical council, it will be acknow- 
ledged that this ground for it was the most natural one that could 
be assigned. 

But it was important to add, that the ministerial superiority of 
the apostles " would not be questioned." Yet here the reviewer* 
is all astonishment ! Here is a link of straw in the argument of 
the tract, whatever be the material of the rest of the chain ! 
What ! trust any portion of the proof of Episcopacy to an asser- 
tion that " will not be questioned !" Even so : the author of the 
tract has been guilty of this most egregious oversight, and he 
must submit to the due castigation. We shall see. But first let 
the reviewer speak for himself. 

" He next attempts to show, that this distinction [between 
i apostles and elders 5 ] was not made because they [the apostles] 
' were appointed by Christ personally, 5 nor because ' they had 
seen our Lord after his resurrection ; 5 nor ' because of their 
power of working miracles : 5 and then the writer adds, ' It fol- 
lows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned? — a qualifica- 
tion which, by the way, seems to look as if the writer had him- 
self no great confidence in the consecutiveness of the demon- 
stration, — ' that the apostles were distinguished from the elders 
because they were superior to them in ministerial power and 
rights.' This is the argument, and this is the whole of it. On 
the making out of this point, depends the stupendous fabric of 
Episcopacy. Here is the corner-stone on which rests the 
claims of bishops ; this the position on which the imposing and 



* At this point of our manuscript we receive a copy of the Review, separate from 
the rest of the periodical in which it appeared, and entitled "Examination of 'Epis- 
copacy Tested by Scripture.' " We ought therefore, perhaps, to say "examiner," 
instead of " reviewer." But as the latter word is commonly used in such articles 
as the present, we retain it. 



100 ANSWER TO A 'REVIEW OP 

mighty superstructure has been reared. Our readers will join 
with us in our amazement, that this point has not been made 
out with a clearer deduction of arguments, than such as were 
fitted to lead to the ambiguous conclusion — * It follows, there- 
fore, or .' " 

Now, what will be the reviewer's "amazement," when we 
assure him that " this is the whole of his argument" affecting 
the tract ! Yet such is the case: for the reasonings, throughout 
his article, are much the same with those usually brought against 
Episcopacy ; and where not the same, they are so much minus 
the former ground, which the tract left far behind in proceeding 
with its inductive demonstration, as we deem it. of that form of 
the ministry. No one, for three years, brought those old reason- 
ings against the tract — no one, till the reviewer fancied he had 
discovered a weak spot in it, and might therefore reproduce 
some of them with effect. Here, then, is the grand — we may say 
the one point of contest ; for if we can make good our cause 
here, we may leave the rest of the old matter of the review, or 
so much of it as we please, where it has reposed for three years* 
The present is only a start in its slumber. 

" Amazement !" Does the reviewer deny the assertion, that 
" it will not be questioned that the apostles were superior to the 
elders in ministerial power and rights V 9 we should be " amazed" 
if he did — ought we to be " amazed" that he neither denies nor 
allows it? His uninitiated readers, however, will understand 
his article as contradicting the tract on this point. He says, 
indeed, with Non-episcopal writers generally, that the apostles 
held only an extraordinary and temporary power over other 
ministers ; but this is not the point in that portion of the argu- 
ment of the tract ; which was only to show the fact that the 
apostles were superior to them, leaving to subsequent investiga- 
tion to decide whether this superiority was temporary or not, 
extraordinary or not. Is it not, then, a fact, that the apostles 
were " superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights ?" 
was it not fair to say, that this assertion would " not be ques- 
tioned V To settle this matter we shall adduce Non-episcopal 
authorities, and in sufficient number, we trust, to satisfy our 
readers ; merely adding, that we do not recollect any who 
"question" it, unless they question or deny also an ordained 
ministry— unless they are other than Presbyterians (proper,) 
with whom only the tract was in controversy. 

In substantiating this assertion by the authorities we shall 
quote, we apprize our readers that they include " evangelists" 
with the apostles, and that they regard the' superior powers of 
both as extraordinary and temporary. Their allowing rights 
over the clergy to evangelists, shows that they did not regard 
those rights as confined to the thirteen principal Apostles — 
which is something for Episcopacy. Their opinion that these 
rights were extraordinary and transient, has no bearing on the 
simple fact that they existed. With the Non-episcopal tone of 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 101 

the language of these writers we have, in using them for this 
fact, nothing to do. 

The late Dr. Wilson. " But it so happens, that the conformity 
in duties between the diocesan bishop and the apostle and 
primitive evangelist ; and the contrast of the oversight of an 
individual church by its presbyters, with an Episcopate in after 
ages ; are now adopted as arguments to prove, contrary to the 
verity oi facts, that diocesan bishops are actually the successors 
in office of the apostles and evangelists, and not of the presby- 
ters in the churches." (p. 252.) That is, the apostles and evan- 
gelists held an " office" the " duties" of which conformed to 
those of diocesan bishops ; of course they were superior to pres- 
byters in ministerial power and rights. Again, speaking of the 
office of Timothy, as an evangelist, " This office was superior 
to that of pastors even teachers." (p. 253.) Again : " There is 
little more propriety in bringing the apostolic office down to a 
level with that of presbyters or bishops, or of elevating the latter 
to the grade of the former, than of supposing every governor an 
alderman, or every alderman a governor of a state, because 
commissioned by such." (p. 268.) 

Dr. Miller. " It is evident, from the whole tenor of Scripture, 
that the apostolic character was superior to that of the evan- 
gelists : and Paul, especially, always addresses Timothy and 
Titus in a style of authority." Again, " We hold that all the 
authority over other ministers, with which the apostles and 
evangelists were vested, was extraordinary, and necessarily 
arose from the sacred canon not being yet complete, and the 
Church not yet settled." (pp. 107, 108, 1st edit.) That is : the 
elders were inferior to the evangelists in " vested" authority, and 
these inferior to the apostles — greatly superior then must the 
apostles have been to the elders in " vested" authority— so " we 
hold," says Dr. Miller, we Presbyterians. To this eminent 
divine, then, the author of the tract may transfer the responsi- 
bility of saying, that " the ministerial superiority of the apostles 
will not questioned," by that denomination, — their "vested" 
official superiority.* 

Dr. Campbell. " No doubt they [the apostles] may be styled 
bishops or overseers, but in a sense very different from that in 
which it is applied to the inspector [presbyter-bishop] over the 
inhabitants of a particular district. They were universal bishops j 
the whole Church, or rather, the whole earth was their charge, 
and they were all colleagues one of another." (p. 77.) 

Matthew Henry. " The officers which Christ gave to his 
Church were of two. sorts ; extraordinary ones, advanced to a 
higher office in the Church; such were apostles, prophets, and 
evangelists. The apostles were chief ..... And then there 



* We have somewhat amplified this paragraph in the reprint to give us the 
benefit of Dr. Miller's name against the Biblical Repertory for April, 1835. 
9* 



102 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower or narrower sphere, 
as pastors and teachers." (On Eph. iv. 11.) 

The Divines who argued with Chaises L, in the Isle of Wight 
i: Those that would carry it {Episcopacy) higher, endeavored to 

imp it into the apostolical office and so the apostolical 

office, (excepting the gifts, or enablements confessed only extra- 
ordinary) is brought down to be Episcopal, and the Episcopal 
raised up to be apostolical. Whereupon it follows that the 
highest officers in the Church are put into a lower orb ; an 
extraordinary office turned into an ordinary distinct office, con- 
founded with that which in the Scripture is not found, a tempos 
rary and an extinct office revived." (p. 6.) In other words, those 
divines allow the official, i. e. the " ministerial" superiority of 
the apostles over presbyters to have been even greater than that 
claimed by bishops—but this latter claim they reject. 

Calvin. " So those twelve individuals, whom the Lord chose 
to promulgate the first proclamation of his Gospel -to the world, 
preceded all other in order and dignity." Again ; " By ' evan- 
gelists' I understand those who were inferior to the apostles in 
dignity, but next to them in office, and who performed similar 
functions." (Inst. b. 4, c. 3, s. 4, 5.) 

Thus, from Calvin downward, it is proved to be ike belieJ of 
Presbyterians, as is asserted in the tract, that " the apostles were 
distinguished from the elders because they were superior to 
them in ministerial power and rights." No Presbyterian, in the 
proper sense of the appellation, " questions " it — none that we 
know of— though some, into whom we have just looked, are not 
explicit on this particular point. As to this superiority having 
been part of the extraordinary prerogative of the thirteen Apos- 
tles, we refer to the tract itself, where it is shown that the pre- 
eminence of certain officers in the Church over elders is recog- 
nised in other individuals, and as perpetual. We may add a 
word or two, on this point, as we proceed. 

So far, then, the tract is safe : nay, those who are versed in 
the Episcopal controversy will think this part of our labor 
supererogatory ; but many, we are sorry to say, know little of 
the argument concerning this branch of the institutions of our 
Lord— and these may learn that there was no cause for the 
<j amazement" of the reviewer. 

We have now further to remark, that the reviewer says that 
the passage we quoted from him contains the " whole " argu- 
ment of the tract on the point just discussed. This is an over- 
sight. The tract, at this very point, referred to a previous note, 
which reads thus :— 

" That the Apostles alone ordained will be proved. In 1 Cor. 
iv. 19-21 ; v. 3h5; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2; 10; and 
1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline 
performed by an Apostle, or threatenings on his part, although 
there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in 
Ephesus." (Tract, p. 12.) 



EPISCOPACY TESTED FY SCRIPTURE. 103 

This note, as referring to several passages ofScripture, should 
be considered as part of the argument of which the reviewer 
inadvertently says, he gives " the whole of it " — the argument, 
in the tract, for the ministerial superiority of apostles over 
elders. Let us examine this note in detail, and see how much 
proof to this effect it condenses in a few lines. 

There must have been elders in Corinth when the epistles 
were written to them. We prove this by the language of Paul 
— " As a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and 
another buildeth thereon." We prove it by the language, hyper- 
bolical indeed in the number, yet decisive of the fact — " Though 
ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ." We prove it by 
the language, in reference to the right of the clergy to be main- 
tained by their flocks — " If others be partakers of this power 
over you, are not we rather?" We prove it by the fact that 
the " Lord's Supper " was celebrated in that church, which 
required an elder, at the least. We prove it by the language, 
concerning some of the Corinthian teachers — " Are they minis- 

ters of Christ I am more." Not only then do we say, 

with the author of the tract, " there must have been elders in 
Corinth," but we assert it positively, there were, at the time Paul 
wrote the two epistles to that church. 

Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter,, so far as the 
epistles show, though they doubtless were noticed and consulted 
as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — 
without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it 
through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci- 
pline among the people of their charge. This is a " ministerial " 
act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to 
the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was "superior to them in 
ministerial power and rights." This conclusion is unavoidable, 
if the fact be sustained. Let us then look to the fact-^-our readers, 
we trust, will accompany us patiently. 

" But J will come to you shortly,' if the Lord will, and will 
know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but tho 
power. 

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 

What will ye ? shall / come to you with a rod, or in love, and 
in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. iv. 19-21.) 

Here is " power " and " a rod," to be exercised under God's 
" kingdom " or sovereignty, and by one man, an apostle, if those 
who were "puffed up" did not humble themselves. Here is 
church discipline threatened, not by or through the elders, but 
by an apostle individually, and with the rod in his hands. 

" For / verily, as absent in body but present in spirit, have 
judged (in the margin determined) already, as though I were 
present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered 
together, and my spirit > with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, 



104 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the 
flesh, that the spirit may be^saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 
(1 Cor. v. 3-5.) 

Here is an act of church discipline, nothing less than excom- 
munication ; and who inflicts it ? the elders at Corinth ? By no 
means. Paul does it. The Apostle "judges" and determines 
to "deliver to Satan" the unworthy Christian — and to do it 
when that church, and "his spirit" were assembled together, 
himself being in that sense present when his sentence was exe- 
cuted. Who read his sentence in the assembly, we are not 
informed ; probably one of the elders. Who ejected the man 
personally, if that mode of executing the sentence was added to 
the reading of it, we are not told. It is enough that the "judg- 
ment," the decision, the authority for the discipline, was that of 
an apostle alone, and evinced his superiority, in ministerial 
functions, to the elders of that church. The excommunication 
led, of course, to the exclusion of the man from the friendship 
and kind offices of the brethren ; and this is called his " punish- 
ment inflicted of many," in the passage we are next to quote. 

"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was 
inflicted of many. 

To whom ye forgive any thing, /forgive also ; for if /forgave 
any thing, to whom / forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in 
the person of Christ." (2 Cor. ii. 6, 10.) 

Here is a remission of discipline, not by the elders, but by an 
apostle ; he pronounces the punishment to be " sufficient." The 
brethren forgive the scandal of the man's conduct, he having 
become penitent ; and Paul forgives him, by removing the sen- 
tence. They forgave as men and fellow Christians— he forgave 
" in the person of Christ." 

With such illustrations of an apostle's power to threaten dis- 
cipline, to inflict discipline, and to remit discipline, we shall 
understand the force of the other passages in the epistles to the 
Corinthians, referred to in the note we have quoted from the 
tract. 

"Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for hisj 
cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered 
wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear 
unto you." (2 Cor. vii. 12.) 

" But though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, 
(which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your 
destruction,) I should not be ashamed," (2 Cor. x. 8.) 

" I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present the 
second time ; and being absent, now I write to them which here- 
tofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again / will 
not spare." 

" Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present 
/ should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord 
hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." (2 Cor. 
xiii. 2, 10.) 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 105 

So much for the Corinthian church and its elders. The 
reviewer was certainly mistaken when he said he had given 
" the argument" of the tract, " the whole of it," for the assertion 
that " the apostles were distinguished from the elders because 
they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights. 55 
He gave but a fraction of it. 

Now turn we to the further proof of that assertion, alluded to 
in the tract, in the case of the church at Ephesus. There " cer- 
tainly were 55 elders in Ephesus, when Paul wrote the first epistle 
to Timothy. We prove this fact from the language, " That thou 
mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine: 55 
teachers then there were in that church, public teachers, author- 
ized teachers, and such are not the ruling elders or deacons of 
parity, nor, (except under the bishop's license,) the deacons of 
Episcopacy ; therefore both these parties, the only ones con- 
cerned with the tract, must agree that they " certainly " were 
elders or presbyters. We prove it by the Apostle's condemna- 
tion of Hymeneus and Alexander, for " making shipwreck con- 
cerning faith,' 5 i. e. making shipwreck in teaching the faithy 
teaching it publicly and with authority — and these teachers 
were elders, for the reasons just given. We prove it also from 
the fact that there were elders at Ephesus, when Paul said to 
them, in Aets xx., " Grievous wolves shall enter in among you 
• . . also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse 
things ; 55 Paul thus declaring that the false teaching at Ephesus 
would be by elders, and would occur afterward, it not having- 
occurred as yet: that the false teaching would be by elders, 
seems decisive in favor of the assertion that the false teaching 
there was by elders, as we have just maintained : that the false 
teaching was yet to occur, when there were already elders in 
Ephesus addressed by Paul, in Acts xx., is proof that that church 
had its elders when this evil indoctrination had occurred, which 
was the case when Paul first wrote to Timothy, as our extracts 
from that epistle show. This latter argument we consider final : 
the epistle enumerates, as errors then existing there, "fables, 
endless genealogies, swerving from charity and faith to vain 
jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse disputings of 
men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth," profane and 
vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called ;•" 
yvwrews, perhaps gnosticism, as Hammond argues. This was the 
state of things at Ephesus, when Paul wrote the epistle. But 
when he addressed the " elders,' 5 in Acts xx., he spoke of 
nothing of the sort as having existed, or as existing then, but 
only as to exist at a future time. If then there were elders there 
before these mischiefs appeared, there " certainly were " when 
they were afterward developed — i. e. when Paul wrote the first 
epistle to Timothy. 

Well then — is the discipline of the church at Ephesus 
intrusted to these elders? Nothing like it. As in the case of 
the Corinthians, that " power was given by the Lord " to an 



106 ANSWER TO A i EVIEW OP 

apostle, and only an apostle exercised it. Read the proof of 
this fact. 

"Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom / have 
delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." 

(ITim. i. 20.) 

It is the apostle that inflicts the discipline ; the elders do not 
appear in the matter. And discipline is a " ministerial " function 5 
and excommunication its highest exercise. 

Again, therefore, we repeat, that this part of the tract must 
have escaped the reviewer's notice, when he declared that he 
had given its "whole argument" for the " ministerial superior- 
ity " of the apostles. Perhaps it would have been better had 
the author of the tract expanded his note, so as to have 
presented the argument more at length, or have given it in 
a larger form in the appendix. But the note, as it stands, 
adverts to every point that here occupies three or more of our 
pages. .*'•' . 

As to the plea that the apostles exercised these rights and 
powers as extraordinary officers, not to be continued in the 
Church, we remark, in the first place, that it is an admission 
that they had .these rights and powers. It is the usual plea of 
Non-episcopal writers, as we have shown, and having brought 
this fact to the recollection of the reviewer, he will be " amazed" 
at himself we think, for having been " amazed" at the assertion 
of the tract, that it " would not be questioned." But, in the next 
place, the plea is not a sound one, for these powers and rights 
passed beyond the thirteen Apostles to other men, as Barnabas, 
Timothy, Titus, and the angels of the seven Asian churches 5 
see the tract. Not so fast, says parity; these, or some of them, 
were " evangelists," and they also were extraordinary and tem- 
porary officers ; to which we reply, that Timothy alone is called 
an evangelist in Scripture, the rest are not. Perhaps, however, 
the reviewer thinks, and if so, we agree with him, that the -act 
has routed the plea commonly rested by Non-episcopalians on 
the title " evangelist," as he does not name the word, but merely 
says that Timothy and Titus had a "temporary" function m 
regulating churches and ministers. This was certainly prudent 
in him, for the postscript to the tract has fairly given that plea 
to the winds. But let the reviewer examine where his new 
position leaves him. Thus,--Timothy and Titus have but tem- 
porary duties, not because they are evangelists, but because they 
do not remain permanently in one station, call it a diocese, or 
any thing else— we ask, then, do elders, or did they, remain 
permanently in one station, call it a parish, a congregation, a 
church, or what you please? if not, then elders also, by the 
same argument, exercised only a temporary function, and so we 
have no ministry left. Take Apollos, for example ; was he not 
an elder, at the least? is he not called a " minister " by Paul, 
and did he not "water" at Corinth what Paul had planted? if 
the reviewer says he was more than an elder, he contradicts the 



EPISCOPACY T. 3TED BY SCRIPTURE. 107 

parity he would defend, for ne then makes two orders in the 
ministry ; if he calls him an evangelist, he retreats from his new 
position, of not adducing that title, and so falls under the demo- 
lishing power of the postscript to the tract. Well, then, does 
Apollos, an elder at the least, remain stationary at Corinth, or in 
any other parish, church, or congregation? No: he had left 
Corinth when Paul wrote the first epistle to the church there ; 
he had gone elsewhere ; yet not even then to be stationary, for 
Paul desired to bring him back to Corinth, and he himself meant 
to come back " when he should have convenient time." (1 Cor. 
xvi. 12.) Here are three successive points occupied in the 
ministry of [elder] Apollos, down to the year 59. The next we 
read of him is in the year 65, when he was on a "journey" or 
voyage, from some place not mentioned, to Crete, and was to 
proceed on from Crete to (probably) Nicopolis.* Similar 
migrations could be traced in the ministry of various other per- 
sons named in the Acts and the Epistles ; as Erastus, Tychicus, 
Trophimus, Crescens, Sopater, &c., &c. ; and, provided, the 
reviewer will allow that they were elders at the least, which 
" will scarcely be questioned, 5 ' we suppose, of the most of them, 
and will not put in the plea that they were evangelists, which is 
precluded by his new position, then there will be so many more 
cases in proof, that elders were as little fixed in one station as 
were Timothy and Titus. At all events, we have the case of 
Apollos to this effect. And the result is this alternative — if 
Timothy and Titus had only temporary superior functions, 
because they exercised them in more than one place, the elders 
had only a temporary function for the same reason ; and then 
we have no ministry left : if, however, the functions of the elders 
were permanent, though they moved from place to place, the 
superior functions of Timothy and Titus were also permanent, 
in sp^te of this same objection ; and thus we have Episcopacy a 
pern ment institution in the Church. 

Our deepest thanks, therefore, are due to the reviewer, for 
co-operating with the tract in brushing away this rubbish of the 
parity argument — that portion of it which is made out of the 
name evangelist — and resting the discussion on the mere facts of 
the case. This is, indeed, a happy agreement — a real advance 
toward settling the controversy between Episcopalians and 
Presbyterians ; for the latter will scarcely take the ground oino 
ministry ; and, if they do not, the only alternative is Episco- 
pacy, as we have just seen. Let any candid Presbyterian 
renounce the evasion of calling Timothy and Titus evangelists, 
and he will have a straight-forward and unincumbered argu- 
ment. The apostles were " superior to the elders in ministerial 
power and rights." Timothy and Titus were also superior to 
the elders in those respects. The "angel" of the church at 



* Titus iii. 12, 13. The reviewer has peculiar ideas of the time of Paul's visit 
to Nicopolis, when he connects this passage with Gal. ii. 1. 



108 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

Ephesus, where there had long been elders, was superior to 
them ; for he alone is addressed as " trying " false apostles, and 
the church there is called his " candlestick," not theirs : and 
this case brings the "superior" office down to the year 96. 
Further, the other six "angels" must have resembled the one 
at Ephesus. Nor is there a particle of scriptural evidence that 
this " superior " office was to cease ; not a particle, though those 
who filled it may not then have been fixed in one station or dio- 
cese ; as also there is not a particle of evidence that the office of 
the elders was to cease, though they too were not always fixed 
in one station or parish. Nay, the fact that inspired epistles 
were written to Timothy, Titus, and the seven " angels," and 
made part of the New Testament, for permanent use in the 
Church — epistles which recognise the rignt to ordain and inflict 
discipline on both clergy and laity, as existing in the " superior" 
officers, but do not recognise this right in the elders— this fact 
alone proves the " superior " office, i, e. Episcopacy, to have 
been intended for permanency. Add to this, that Timothy was 
to "keep this commandment [the 'charge' given him as a 
1 superior ' officer in the church] till the appearing of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ; " which implies that there were to be such officers 
as Timothy, to keep the same "charge," till Christ should 
appear — till the end of the world. Let any candid Presbyterian 
examine this train of proof, particularly as stated more fully in 
the tract, leaving out of the question, as the reviewer does most 
creditably, the evasion concerning " evangelists," and he will 
wish, at least, to be an Episcopalian. 

We have finished the main discussion we proposed. We have 
defended, and we hope to purpose, the portion of the tract 
chiefly assailed by the reviewer. We have shown that the only 
link supposed to be weak, the grand link, "the point, on the 
making out of which depends the stupendous fabric of Episco- 
pacy," the " corner-stone, on which rest the claims of bishops;" 
we have shown that this now very distinguished link in the 
chain of the tract's inductive proof of Episcopacy, is firm as 
steel. This done, all the work incumbent on us is performed. 
There is no more necessity for coping with the common and 
diffusive arguments against us, which may appear subsequently 
to the tract, than there was for it to notice all arguments of this 
kind that had appeared before. No one, we believe, has blamed 
the tract for pushing on its train of inductive reasoning, without 
regarding these interminable discussions ; and no one can blame 
us, if we now say to the reader, " Go to the tract itself, read it 
carefully and with impartiality, and then decide, before God 
and your own conscience, whether it does not prove Episcopacy 
from Scripture." He who will do it this justice, will want no 
other arguments for that ministry, and will fear none against it. 
Our duty therefore is sufficiently discharged. 

But rather than be uncivil to one whom we suspect to be a 
new comer into this field of controversy, we will extend our 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 109 

article, and notice some of his other remarks, more especially 
those in which he has somewhat of novelty, or differs from the 
most of his predecessors. 

He says that the apostles were ordained, as such, early in our 
Lord's ministry. He regards the words addressed to them, after 
the resurrection, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, " Go 
ye into all the world," &c., as but " instructions," not as per- 
taining to a fresh ordination to a higher office. But he omits 
entirely the record of John, relating to that subsequent period. 
"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you .... receive 
ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." This looks very like the substance of an ordination 
—the eleven are " sent ; " they receive the " Holy Ghost," in the 
ecclesiastical sense, we presume, just as the elders of Ephesus 
were " made overseers [presbyter-bishops] by the Holy Ghost ;" 
and they are told that they have the power of absolving true 
penitents, the nature of which power in the clergy is foreign to 
our present discussion. Are we not right in thinking that an 
ordination is here? Would the reviewer, having asserted the 
previous ordination of the apostles, would he, or would he not, 
if this passage had occurred to him, have seen a second ordina- 
tion in it? If he had, he would have seen that which is 
fatal to the rule of parity, that there is but one order in the 
ministry. 

The reviewer asks for explicit proof that Paul or the twelve 
were invested with superiority of office; we might ask him, in 
return, for explicit proof of their investment with the power of 
ordaining. He infers their right to ordain from the facts of 
Scripture, and we also infer their superiority of office from the 
same kind of evidence. Both inferences are unavoidable. [The 
right of Timothy and Titus, individually, to ordain, is recorded ; 
that they did ordain is therefore justly presumed.] 

The reviewer, in order to show what he thinks was the point 
in which the apostles excelled the elders in the matter in ques- 
tion, dwells largely on the fact that they were special witnesses 
of our Lord's resurrection ; and with the help of Capital and 
Italic letters, he has certainly made a showy argument. But 
nobody denies that they were the special witnesses, or that they 
were thus distinguished from the elders, as well as from others 
called apostles ; the tract gave due attention to both these parti- 
culars. The point is, was this distinction the one that led to the 
expression " apostles and elders ? " Surely not. Among those 
apostles was Barnabas, and perhaps Silas, (Acts xiv. 14 ; xv. 2, 
4, 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; ii. 6,) neither of whom was a special wit- 
ness of the resurrection. Besides : the expressions, " apostles 
and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren," are used with 
immediate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and the reviewer 
is more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say why, in a 
council acting on questions, concerning " idols, blood, things. 
10 



110 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

strangled, and licentiousness," the special witnesses of the resur- 
rection should, as such, have peculiar authority. We really 
think the tract argues with more consistency, when it says that 
the apostles were ministerially above the elders. [For the " pro- 
bability " that there was a third James, see Hammond.] 

On the point of the Apostleship of Timothy, the reviewer 
thinks he was not included in the expression, " We . . . . the 
apostles of Christ," in 1 Thess. ii., which epistle begins, " Paul, 
and Silvanus, [Silas,] and Timotheus, unto the church of the 
Thessalonians " — Why? — Because it is said just before, " We 
had suffered, and were shamefully entreated at Philippi," and 
Timothy, he asserts, was not at Philippi at the time these 
severities were endured. Now, we argue these passages the 
other way ; we think they, of themselves, prove that Timothy 
was at Philippi, and " suffered, and was shamefully entreated," 
though he was not beaten and put in prison, as Paul and Silas 
were. We turn also to the history in the Acts, (xvi., xvii.,) 
where we find that before going to Philippi, " Paul would have 
Timothy to go forth with him;" and after leaving Philippi, 
Timothy was with him at Berea, without a word or a hint that 
he had left Paul, or returned to him in the meantime. The evi- 
dence is all on our side, and connecting that in the epistle with 
that in the Acts, it is conclusive. 

The reviewer says, " We would respectfully ask the author of 
this tract, where he finds an intimation of the existence of an 
order of ' clergy at large? in these churches," the seven churches 
in Asia. We " respectfully " answer, that he has not said one 
word of " an order of clergy at large," but has only spoken of 
the "clergy at large" in those churches, an expression which 
we are a amazed " to see misunderstood. His remark is — " Ob- 
serve the emphatic use of the singular number in the address to 
each of the angels ; \ I know thy works,' is the clear and strong", 
language directed to them all successively, implying the respon-* 
sibility, not of a church at large, or of its clergy at large, but of 
the head or governor individually." The reviewer is first, we 
believe, in imagining an " order of clergy at large," though he 
does not believe in his own imagination. And now, we would 
" respectfully ask " in return, Why does the reviewer " lay out 
of view the case of the { elders at Ephesus,' " when considering 
the case of the " angel " at Ephesus ? Were there no pastoral 
elders [presbyter-bishops] in that church, in the year 96, though 
Timothy had been there so long previously, thirty years or 
more, " intrusted with the right of ordination ! ! " If there were 
such elders there in that year, 96, as there certainly was also an 
" angel," then our Lord's directing an epistle concerning the 
state of the church, and the trying of false apostles, to the 
li angel " individually, and not to the elders at large, or to the 
" clergy at large," i. e. including the angel with the rest, is a 
good argument for Episcopacy. The alternative thus reached, 
is ? either Timothy committed a much grosser oversight than 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. Ill 

will be ascribed to him, in not ordaining pastoral elders in that 
city, or the reviewer has committed an oversight of some mag- 
nitude, in "laying out of view" those elders, in his argument 
upon the case of the seven churches. 

We frankly acknowledge that we do not understand what the 
reviewer means (p. 79) in recognising as a question, respecting 
the elders at Ephesus, mentioned in Acts xx., " whether they 
were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as 
to rule." They are there called " overseers " or bishops ; we 
regard such persons as presbyter-bishops, the second order, 
and Presbyterians give the name bishop to their only order of 
clergy proper. If ruling elders are bishops ako, then they have 
two orders of bishops, which destroys parity. 

Equally above our comprehension is it, that the reviewer, after 
thus recognising " ruling elders," should say in the next para- 
graph but one, " There are but two orders of ministers spoken 
of, or alluded to, in the epistles [to Timothy,] bishops and 
deacons." Are not ruling elders "spoken of" in those epistles, 
according to Presbyterian interpretation ? If Presbyterian dea- 
cons are " ministers," are not Presbyterian ruling elders, who rank 
above them, " ministers " also ? Here again we are sadly in the 
dark. If the reviewer disallows the office of a ruling elder, dis- 
allowed also by his opponent, why recognise it in his argument? 
and why say that the epistles of Ignatius, full as they are of 
u bishop, presbyters and deacons," seem to [his] eyes to be a 
plain straight-forward account of the existence of Presbyterian- 
ism in his time?" If he allows that office, why intimate that it 
is not part of the " ministry " of his denomination, while that of 
a Presbyterian deacon is ? 

The reviewer says that if our bishops, claiming to be the suc- 
cessors of the apostles, were to assume the name " apostles," 
Episcopacy would soon be " shorn of its beams." Very likely, 
f hey have lost that name since the first century : those of the 
present day are not responsible for the change : yet it no doubt 
was wisely made. Let us try the converse of the proposition. 
Presbyterian ministers of the thorough sort claim likewise to 
be successors of the apostles ; suppose then that they were to 
assume that name, what would become of the "beams" of 
Presbyterianism ? Again, the reviewer favors the Idea that the 
" c angels 1 were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity 
with each other;" suppose then Presbyterian pastors were to 
assume the name of " angels," the Angel of the church in Arch- 
street, the Angel of the church in Pine-street, the Angel of the 
church in Washington-square, would the "beams" of their 
churches be less in jeopardy than those of our church would be 
from the titles, the Apostle of the church in Pennsylvania, the 
Apostle of the church in Virginia, the Apostle of the church in 
Tennessee? < 

The reviewer thinks that as presbyters lay on hands with the 
bishop when a presbyter is ordained, " it is in fact, a Presbyte* 



112 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

riari ordination." We think otherwise. When Presbyterians 
ordain, the theory is, so we understand their writers,* that the 
authority comes from that one of their presbyters who presides 
on the occasion, the others being present to express the consent 
of the Church, in other words, as a canonical or church regula- 
tion to prevent any one man from performing so important an 
act by himself alone. This is Presbyterian ordination ; the 
authority flows, not from a presbytery, but from a Presbyterian 
presbyter. So precisely in the case of our ordinations. The 
authority flows from the bishop ; the presbyters lay on hands 
to denote the consent of the Church, to show that the bishop 
acts canonically, and not according to the mere impulse of his 
individual will. And this is Episcopal ordination, because the 
act derives its virtue from the bishop. Ordination by one pres- 
byter would be valid among Presbyterians, and the ordination 
of a priest by the bishop alone would be valid among Episcopa- 
lians ; but neither would accord with church regulations. 

One word more concerning the " burden of proof," as con- 
trasted with the " presumptive argument." The tract claimed 
no presumption in its favor, in seeking for the scriptural proofs 
of Episcopacy. We do — a presumption founded on common 
sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and 
Episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office, both reli- 
gious and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the 
Patriarchal Church there was the distinction of "high-priest" 
and " priest." (Heb. v. 10 ; vi. 20.) In the Jewish Church, (com- 
mon sense being in this case unquestionably divinely approved,) 
there were the high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans 
and Mahommedans there are various grades in the office deemed 
sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, 
princes, a king, an emperor, &c, as the heads of the general, or 
state, or provincial magistracies. In armies and navies there is 
always a chief. If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we 
reply they are exceptions only, and verj^ few in number. The 
general rule is with us. That general rule next to universal 
is, that among officers there is a difference of power, of rights, 
of rank, of grade, call it what you will. And this general rule 
gives a presumption that such will also be the case in the Chris- 
tian Church.* We go to Scripture then with the presumptive 
argument fully against parity, If we should find in Scripture 
neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the 
former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful on this point, 
imparity has the advantage, common sense turning the scale. 
If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in 
favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to 
Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any 
thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it 
must be very explicit to overturn the suggestion of common 

* See Form of Government, chap. 14, sect. 12. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 113 

sense. The " presumptive argument," then, is clearly with us, 
and the " burden of proof" lies on parity. 

We have exceeded the limits to which we intended to confine 
ourselves — and though there are some other points in the review 
which we are tempted to notice, we must be content with 
extracting part of its truly elegant and courteous tribute to the 
Episcopal Church, 

" We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the 
Church in England took its firm stand against the Papacy ; and 
that this was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor from 
the dark night of ages, We remember Cranmer, — Cranmer 
first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it was by his 
steady and unerring hand, that, under God, the pure Church of 
the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing 
times of Henry VIII. We remember that God watched over 
that wonderful man ; that he gave this distinguished prelate 
access to the heart of one of the most capricious, cruel, inexora- 
ble, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced 
the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Church, 
conducted Henry, as { by a hook in the nose,' and made him 
faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none 
else." 

"She [the Episcopal Church] is consolidated; well mar- 
shalled ; under an efficient system of laws ; and pre-eminently 
fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We 
desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient 
army ; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of 
movement, with her power of maintaining the position which 
she takes ; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of 
sacred learning, and the love of order and of law, attending or 
leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in 
an alienated world. We should even rejoice to see her who 
was first in the field, at the Reformation in England, first, also, 
in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself 
his great power," &c. 

A truly splendid eulogium on our Church,— and one which 
does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to 
prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it. and the 
honorable frankness which gave it public utterance. With the 
feelings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs^ 
we have, we can have, no controversy whatever— we rather 
desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be taught 
more of the grand duty of love by an opponent who so nobly 
and so delightfully exemplifies it. We would only ask— If 
Episcopacy is to be found the "first" in the Church, at the 
second advent of the Son of Man, is it probable that he left no 
Episcopacy in the Church, when his first advent terminated. 

H. U. O. 

10* 



ESSAY, 

On the Question, — When did Paul place Timothy over the 
Church at Ephesus ? 



The date of this event is of some interest to those who 
examine the controversy between Episcopacy and parity. It 
is very far, however, from being essential to the Episcopal 
cause, as a few remarks will show. Parity alleges, — such at 
least is its usual and most advantageous view of the case, — that 
Timothy was placed at Ephesus before there were any clergy 
there, and that his functions were to ordain a supply of them, 
and settle the new church. To this Episcopacy replies, that, 
even granting there were no clergy there at the date assumed, 
It is evident, from the epistles to Timothy, that he individually 
had supreme power, both in governing and ordain ng, and 
that there is no evidence that this supreme power of that in- 
dividual chief officer passed afterward to the body of clergy, 
or was in any respect modified or restricted ; and that besides 
this want of evidence that parity took the place of this arrange- 
ment equivalent to Episcopacy, the second epistle affords positive 
proof that it did not, since in that epistle, when there certainly 
were clergy at Ephesus, Timothy is still addressed individually, 
and as the head of its church. Episcopacy further declares, 
that it is not to be taken for granted that there were no clergy 
at Ephesus, at even the earliest date of Timothy's being placed 
there by St. Paul ; and moreover, that the proper date of this 
event is later, when there were at that place the elders addressed 
by Paul, (in Acts xx.,) with others to keep up or increase their 
number. And an irrefutable argument for Episcopacy is drawn 
from comparing that address to the Ephesian elders, which con- 
tains not a hint of their right to ordain and exercise clerical dis- 
cipline, with the epistles to Timothy individually, as connected 
with the same church, which recognise those rights as existing 
in him in all fulness and perfection. 

It will thus be seen, that the question concerning the proper 
date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesus, though not vital in 
this controversy, is yet one of much interest. 

Three dates of this event have been suggested, and, as far as 
the present writer's information extends, three only. St. Paul 
writes, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
into Macedonia," (1 Tim. i. 3;) of course the date to be assigned 
must be consistent with some journey of that apostle into Mace- 
donia. Of Paul's journeys into that region, after the founding of 
a church at Ephesus, there were three. The first was after a 
riot had driven him from that city,* The second was soon after, 

* Acts xx. 1. This journey had been intended by Paul, (1 Cor. xvi, 5, 6,) but the 
riot hastened his departure. 
( 114) 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 115 

when having been in Greece, he returned to Syria circuitously, 
through Macedonia, on account of the machinations of the Jews, 
(Acts xx. 3.) The third was* still later, after his fir,st imprison- 
ment in Rome, when he again visited the eastern churches, as 
will be shown under the proper head of this essay. We shall 
borrow a portion of the following remarks from Macknight's 
preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, and from several pieces 
entitled " Timothy at Ephesus," in the Church Register, for 
March and April, 1827. 

1. Presbyterian controvertists generally, as also many other 
writers of high authority, favor the opinion, that Paul placed 
Timothy at Ephesus when he fled from that city, and went into 
Macedonia, after the riot mentioned in Acts xix. 23-41. And 
they allege, in behalf of parity, that there were then no clergy 
in the Ephesian church, and that Timothy was to ordain a sup- 
ply of them, in his supposed temporary relation to that church 
as an evangelist. 

As to Timothy's having had supreme power in Ephesus, of 
any where else, merely as an evangelist, a full refutation of that 
opinion will be found in the postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by 
Scripture," contained in the Protestant Episcopalian for Decem- 
ber, 1830 ; that essay is now circulating as a tract. 

As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Paul fled 
thence, after the " uproar," into JYIacedonia, it is an assertion 
infinitely improbable. He had now been there "three years." 
He had previously made a short stay in that city ; after which, 
Apollos " taught diligently there the things of the Lord," having 
Aquila and Priscilla to help him, and so advanced the great 
cause, that some were called " the brethren." (Acts xviii. 19-28.) 
When Paul reached them again, some who had received only 
John's baptism, were baptized in the name of Jesus, with a will- 
ingness which showed that Christianity had taken root among 
them, (Acts xix. 1-5.) After three months, Paul " separated the 
disciples" from the synagogue, ( Acts xix. 9 : ) and when Jewish con- 
verts would bear any thing like such a separation, they certainly 
were past the most difficult part of their noviciate, and some of 
them either were, or could soon be, prepared for the ministry. 
Shall we believe, then, that Paul would leave this Christian 
church, now fully severed from the synagogue, for two years, 
or nearly three, without providing it ministers, when he knew 
the dangers to which he was constantly exposed? Shall we 
believe that, when " the word of God had mightily grown and 
prevailed" in that city, he would send away Timothy and Eras- 
tus, (Acts xix. 22,) without having ordained others, or else doing 
it without delay? The supposition is not credible. Nor is it 
countenanced by other parts of the holy record : for that apostle 
and Barnabas had ordained elders, in other Asiatic cities, in much 
less than two years, (Acts xiv. 23.) Long before Paul fled from 
Ephesus, clergymen must have been appointed for that church; 
if not, he made less provision for the numerous converts in that 



116 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 

most important city, than was made for fewer converts in cities 
less important ; which is a supposition infinitely improbable. 

As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Timothy 
was placed there, be the date of that occurrence early or late, 
we know to the contrary. St. Paul writes to him that he was 
placed there, " that he might charge some that they teach no 
other doctrine," (1 Tim. i. 3;) which implies that there were 
already teachers in that church, " some" of whom inculcated 
error. It follows, that many authorized teachers, or ordained 
clergymen, were in Ephesus when Timothy was directed to as- 
sume the superintendence of that body of Christians. As then 
these clergymen required such a superintendent among them, 
both to govern them, and to ordain others, it is rightly concluded 
that they had not within themselves the power of either ordina- 
tion or clerical discipline. And this destroys the claim of parity, 
and establishes that of Episcopacy. 

In this view, it may seem unnecessary to discuss the question, 
When was Timothy placed at Ephesus as the chief officer of its 
church ? But, as any one truth strengthens any other related 
to it, this point will now be considered. 

We assert that Timothy was not placed over the church at 
Ephesus when Paul fled thence to Macedonia, after the riot. 
Here let the point of the argument be distinctly noticed. Paul 
says, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
into Macedonia." Of course Timothy must have been there, or 
had his residence there at the time of this request, or else been 
so connected with that church as that it was his ecclesiastical 
home ; and his residence or ecclesiastical home was also to be 
there for a considerable period afterward, or rather permanently, 
since there is no hint any where in Scripture, that his functions 
in Ephesus, when placed over that church, would at any time 
cease. 

Now, Timothy was not at Ephesus when Paul fled, after the 
riot, into Macedonia. He and Erastus had been sent away some 
time previously to Macedonia, and ■ Timothy also to Corinth, 
(Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10;) and there is no evidence 
that he returned before the Apostle fled from Ephesus.* Nay, 
there is evidence of the contrary, as will readily appear. Thus : 
Paul wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, 
and in it Timothy is spoken of as then on his mission [to Mace- 
donia first, and then] to Corinth ; he probably took this epistle, 
(1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 8, 10.) The second epistle was written after 
the riot and Paul's flight, which are there mentioned, (2 Cor. 
i. 8-10.) In the first epistle, several abuses among the Corinth- 
ians are censured ; and Paul would have heard from Timothy 
whether his censures were effectual, had he returned to the 



* St. Paul expected Timothy to " come unto him" from Corinth, but where, does 
not appear ; it may have been in Macedonia, as probably as in Ephesus. (1 Con 
xvi. 5, 8, 10, U.) 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 117 

Apostle while yet at Ephesus ; instead of which he obtains the 
first intelligence, not from Timothy, but from Titus, after reach- 
ing Macedonia. (2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 6-16.) Titus, it appears, was 
returning from Corinth before Timothy, who also left there soon 
afterward, in time to meet Paul in Macedonia, where the two 
latter united in the second epistle to the Corinthians. (2 Cor. i. 1.) 
Let us notice more fully the above particulars. St. Paul flies 
from Ephesus to Troas, where he hoped to meet Titus, and get 
the intelligence from the Corinth ians that he so much desired, 
(2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ;) and this his looking for Titus only, implies 
that the Apostle scarcely expected that Timothy, who certainly 
cannot (without the clearest proof) be supposed to have aban- 
doned his mission to Corinth, had yet left the latter place ; and 
this, obviously, further implies that he could not, at the date of 
the "uproar" which drove away Paul, have returned thence to 
Ephesus. Paul continues his journey from Troas to Macedonia, 
yet still has no tidings from the Corinthians, till Titus " comes" 
to him, and u comforts" his "cast down" spirit by the intel- 
ligence that he had rectified the abuses among those brethren. 
(2 Cor. vii. 6, &c.) Not once does Paul refer to any news from 
them, favorable or unfavorable, brought by Timothy. If these 
facts do not prove, in the absence of all intimations whatever to 
the contrary, that Timothy had not returned to Ephesus when 
Paul fled, no confidence can be placed in the strongest circum- 
stantial evidence. And if Timothy was not there, when Paul 
then " went into Macedonia," it could not be said that Paul then 
" besought him to abide there still." In other words, it was not 
on the occasion 'of this departure of the Apostle for Macedonia 
that Timothy was placed over the church at Ephesus. 

Neither was Timothy so connected with Ephesus at that time, 
as to make it his ecclesiastical home ; fo^ his principal duties 
were just now in Macedonia and Corinth ; and even previously, 
his clerical connexion had rather been with Paul than the Ephe- 
sians. (Acts xix. 22.) Nor was he at Ephesus for some time 
after; for he was with Paul awhile in Macedonia, when he join- 
ed in the second epistle to the Corinthians, and still with him in 
Greece, from a port of which region he and others sailed to 
rejoin that apostle at Troas; (Acts xx. 1-5;) and as Paul, in 
thus prosecuting his voyage to Jerusalem, did not go to Ephe- 
sus, (Acts xx. 16, 17,) and said nothing to the elders of that 
church whom he met at Miletus, of Timothy's being then left 
among them, we conclude with commentators in general, that 
the latter did not then tarry there, but went onward to Jerusa- 
lem with the great Apostle. 

2. The next opinion is, that Timothy was placed over the 
Ephesian church at a period some months later than the riot, 
when Paul, being prevented by the Jews from sailing directly 
from Greece to Syria, (as we have just seen,) went circuitously 
^hither through Macedonia. (Acts xx. 3, 6.) We have shown, 
however, that Timothy was not in Ephesus at this time, nor so 



118 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 

specially connected with it as to make it his ecclesiastical home ; 
of course Paul could not with propriety say to him, "I besought 
thee to abide still at Ephesus." For this reason, we cannot 
allow this journey of Paul into Macedonia to have been the date 
of Timothy's being placed over the Ephesian church. 

Another argument of great force precludes the supposition 
that Timothy was placed there at any time before Paul deliver- 
ed his address to the clergy of that city, as stated in Acts xx. ; 
and this argument applies to both the present theory of the date 
in question, and the one we have before noticed. In that 
address Paul speaks of the errors and mislead ings of false teach- 
ers, as yet future; he makes no complaint of them as then 
existing in Ephesus; but says they " shall arise," and "shall 
enter in." (Acts xx. 29, 30.) But, in the first epistle to Timothy, 
he desires him to "charge some to teach no other doctrine," 
intimating that the false teachers had, at the date of that epistle, 
begun their mischievous proceedings; he enumerates as errors 
then existing there, fables, endless genealogies, swerving from 
chanty and faith to vain jangling, questions and strifes of words, 
perverse disputings, profane and vain babblings, and oppositions 
of science falsely so called ; he also names Hymeneus and 
Alexander, whose doctrines had been so hurtful, that he had 
" delivered them unto Satan." (1 Tim. I 3-6; vi.4, 5, 20; i. 20.) 
Now, besides that it is wholly improbable that ail these evils 
could have befallen the Ephesian church in the few months 
that elapsed between PauPs flight and his address to their elders, 
it is impossible that so much false teaching could have existed 
there at the very time he told the elders that the false teachers 
were yet to spring up. It follows unavoidably that the station- 
ing of Timothy there was subsequent to the address of St. Paul 
to the elders in Acts xx., and indeed that there must have been 
an interval of some duration, to allow so extensive a develop- 
ment of error and delusion among the Ephesian clergy. And 
hence, we again assert, that as both PauPs flight into Macedonia, 
and his going thither again from Greece, were previous to the 
address referred to, neither of those dates can be allowed for 
the placing of Timothy at Ephesus. To the present writer, this 
argument appears to have the force of demonstration. 

It is to be observed, however, that if this second date could 
be allowed, there would be a remarkable proof of Episcopacy in 
the fact, that the first epistle to Timothy and the address to the 
elders would both have issued from the great Apostle at the 
same period, the one assigning Episcopal duties to Timothy, 
the other enjoining only pastoral duties on the elders. The 
Apostle would thus have delivered simultaneously the records 
of the functions of each, showing that the one was superior, and 
the others inferior in the sacred office. But as the evidence is 
against the supposition that these two charges were delivered at 
the same time, this striking view of that proof of Episcopacy 
cannot be maintained. The substance, however, of that proof 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 119 

is fully ours; no ingenuity can impair the scriptuial demonstra- 
tion of Episcopacy founded on the comparison of the address to 
the elders as pastors, with the epistles to Timothy as supreme 
officer or bishop. 

3. A third date for the connexion of Timothy with the Ephe- 
sian church has been mentioned, and this now claims our atten- 
tion. We assert that Timothy was in Ephesus some years after 
the above two dates, and that Paul likewise " went" (or "was 
going,'' as the word may be translated,) into Macedonia after 
the two journeys thither already referred to. After that apos- 
tle's first imprisonment in Rome, is the date we assign as the 
only one that can be defended. We find it plainly recorded, 
that both he and Timothy were again at that later 'period in 
these eastern parts, though it is not mentioned in the Acts, as 
that book ends with Paul's first detention in the imperial city. 

The reader will see in the following proofs that Timothy was 
certainly in Ephesus, and that Paul probably " went," and cer- 
tainly " was going" into Macedonia after that apostle was first 
in Rome. Timothy was with him, be it recollected, in the latter 
city. (Phil. i. 1, 13.) We shall first adduce the evidence of their 
intention to go eastward from Rome, and then the evidence that 
they did so, first as regards St. Paul, and then as regards 
Timothy. 

Paul intended to visit Philippi in Macedonia after leaving 
Rome. He wrote to the Philippians when he was in that city, 
where his "bonds in Christ were manifest in all the palace," or 
" Caesar's court," as in the margin. He assures the church in 
Philippi, that he " trusted in the Lord that he would come 
shortly" to them ; nay, he writes more strongly, " I know that 
I shall abide and continue with you all . . . that your rejoicing 
may be more abundant ... by my coming to you again f he 
seems even to intimate the possibility of frequent visits, " That 
whether I come and see you, or else be absent." (Phil. i. 13; 
ii. 24; i. 25-27.) This is evidence sufficient that Paul designed 
going into Macedonia when he should leave Rome. 

Paul intended to visit Philemon after his release from Rome, 
and even ordered a " lodging" to be prepared for him in Colosse, 
where Philemon resided.* Colosse was in Phrygia, in Asia Minor, 
and sufficiently near Ephesus. Of course, it was Paul's inten- 
tion to visit the countries on that side the iEgean Sea, and in the 
neighborhood of Ephesus, after leaving Rome ; for the epistle to 
Philemon was written while Paul was yet a prisoner in that 
city. (See. v. 10.) 

Paul intended to visit the Hebrews after his release at Rome. 
He wrote the epistle to them from Italy, and says expressly, " I 
will see you," (Heb. xiii. 19, 23, 24.) The Hebrews were either 

* Philem. 22. The proof that Philemon resided in Colosse will be seen by com- 
paring Philem. 2, with Col. iv. 17; in both which passages Archippus is named as 
a minister living at the place to which both epistles were sent; both being sent at 
the same time by Onesimus. (Col. iv. 9 ; Philem. 12.) 



120 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 

the Jewish converts in Judea, or the Jewish converts at large. 
If those in Judea are meant, he promised to proceed to that 
country after leaving Italy. If those at large are meant, we are , 
secure in saying there were vastly more of them east of Italy, 
than in any other direction; and, in this view, he promised to 
visit, after his release, the eastern countries of the Mediterranean ; 
and there were so many new churches, including Jewish con- 
verts, on both sides of the iEgean Sea, that we may justly regard 
his promised voyage as including them : among these churches, 
those at Ephesus and Philippi (in Macedonia) were conspicuous. 

Paul did visit Miletum or Miletus, after his release at Rome ; 
he writes to Timothy that he had left Trophimus sick at that 
place. (2 Tim. iv. 20.) There was a Miletus near Ephesus, 
where Paul met the elders, and another in Crete. (See Calmet. 
Acts xx. 17.) If the former be here meant, then Paul, after leav- 
ing Rome, was in the very neighborhood of Ephesus. But as, at 
the date of this second epistle, Timothy was himself in Ephesus, 
and Paul now again in Rome, he would not probably write to 
him respecting Trophimus if he were in that Miletus, so near 
Timothy's residence ; and it therefore is more justly presumed 
that the Miletum in Crete was the place where Trophimus was 
left sick. If this latter was the Miletum intended, then Paul 
was again in Crete after his first imprisonment, for the date of 
this second epistle to Timothy, is his second imprisonment .;* 
and if in Crete, he was among the eastern churches, and suffi- 
ciently near the iEgean Sea to visit its coasts, including Ephesus 
and Macedonia ; the latter visit he had almost positively promised 
the Philippians, as was shown in a former paragraph. 

Paul did visit Corinth after leaving Rome. Besides mention- 
ing to Timothy, as above stated, that he had left Trophimus at 
Miletum, he also says, in the same verse, "Erastus abode at 
Corinth." He could not mean that he had remained there ever 
since his mission to that city, six or seven years before, for 
Timothy had been often with Paul since that time, and would 
have been fully informed that Erastus had continued thus sta- 
tionary. No ; Paul connects the tarrying of Erastus at Corinth 
with his leaving Trophimus at Miletum, meaning that the two 
incidents had occurred at the same period, and recently. Hence 
Doddridge remarks, "It seems by this clause that [Erastus] was 
in PauPs company when he parted with Timothy, as it is likely 
Trophimus also was. And, as none can suppose Paul would 
have mentioned these things to Timothy in this connexion, if 
they had happened many years before, (Acts xix. 22,) I look 



* 2 Tim. i. 8, 16, 17; ii. ; iv. 6, 16. Paul had been in Crete on his first voyage to 
Rome as a prisoner. (Acts xxvii. 8.) But this was long before the date of this 
epistle; and the sickness of Trophimus is mentioned as a recent occurrence. Be- 
sides, Timothy had been with Paul in Rome since that landing in Crete, and would 
know of this sickness, had it then occurred, without any allusion to it in the epistle. 
Of course, Trophimus was left at Miletum afterward, i. e. subsequently to Paul's 
discharge from his first imprisonment in Rome ; Paul being then again in Crete. 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 121 

upon this as a very material argument to prove that he returned 
into these eastern parts, between his first and second imprison- 
ment at Rome; though probably, if he ever saw Ephesus again, 
most of the ministers of that and the neighboring places, with 
whom he had the celebrated interview at Miletus, mentioned 
Acts xx., were either dead or removed." 

Paul did visit eastern parts after his first imprisonment at 
Rome. In Tit. iii. 12, we read that he had determined to spend 
a winter at Nicopolis. There were several cities of this name ; in 
Macedonia, in one or more of the neighboring provinces, and in 
Pontus in Asia Minor; it matters not, at present, which of them 
is here meant. When then was Paul in Nicopolis, or so near it 
as to " determine there to winter?" it was after leaving Titus in 
Crete. (Tit. i. 5.) Now, the first we know of Paul's being in 
Crete, was his landing there, when on his voyage to Rome ; then, 
however, he was a prisoner, and could have had no expectation 
of wintering in Nicopolis. It must, therefore, have been after 
his release at Rome, that he left Titus in Crete, having been 
again in that island. And subsequently to this, he was in or 
near the Nicopolis which he selected for his winter residence. 
This brings back that apostle from Rome to either Macedonia or 
Asia Minor ; and he doubtless revisited both these regions. 

Paul did visit Troas after his first imprisonment in Rome. 
He desired Timothy to bring thence his cloak, books and parch- 
ments. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) That he left them there after his first 
visit to Rome, is exceedingly probable ; for the last time he was 
at Troas before being a prisoner, was in A. D. 60; and we cannot 
suppose he would leave these things there till A. D. 66, when he 
wrote to Timothy to bring them ; we know that, while a prisoner, 
both in Caesarea and Rome, he could send and receive mes- 
sengers freely. (Acts xxiv. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25; iv. 18; Eph. vi. 21 ; 
Col. iv. 7, 9, 10.) If to this probability we add the evidence 
already adduced, that Paul returned from Rome to the east, it 
will appear indisputable that he was at that period in Troas, and 
left there the things mentioned. Troas was near Macedonia, and 
on the same coast with Ephesus. 

Let us now recapitulate the evidence of Paul's return eastward 
from Rome. His intention was to visit Philippi, Colosse, the 
Hebrews. He actually was at Miletum, at Corinth, at or near 
Nicopolis, at Troas. All this we prove from Scripture. Who 
can doubt then that he was on the shores of the iEgean Sea, after 
his release from the tribunal of Caesar, when brought before it 
the first time ? Or, who will say that our evidence is insufficient, 
when we assert, that, as the first two dates assigned for his 
placing Timothy at Ephesus are indefensible, it must have been 
now, in these later voyages, that he committed that church to 
this his favorite son in the faith, and went on himself to Mace- 
donia? 

But we shall strengthen this body of argument by showing that 
Timothy also returned to the east, after being with Paul in Rome. 
II 



122 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 

Paul intended to send Timothy to Philippi, when he should be 
free to depart from Rome — " I trust in the Lord Jesus to send 
Timotheus shortly unto you ;" " him, therefore, I hope to send 
presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me." (Phil, 
ii. 19, 23.) 

Paul intended that Timothy should accompany him to the 
Hebrews—" Our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if 
he come shortly, I will see you." (Heb. xiii. 23.) From this 
passage it appears that Timothy had also been a prisoner in 
Rome, but was now released. At the moment of Paul's writing 
Timothy had, for a short time, left him ; according to Grotius, 
this excursion was into Gaul, but he was soon expected back to 
accompany Paul on his eastern voyage. 

Timothy actually was among the eastern churches, after leav- 
ing Rome. While in Rome, Paul writes to the Colossians con- 
cerning Marcus or Mark, — " If he come unto you, receive him :" 
(Col. iv. 10:) which shows that Mark was expected to go to 
Colosse. In the second epistle to Timothy, written after Paul's 
first, and during his second imprisonment, he writes — " Take 
Mark, and bring him with thee" to Rome. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) 
Mark, therefore, had gone to Colosse ; and Timothy was now 
again so near that place, that Paul desired the latter to summon 
the former, or " take" him on his way, to rejoin himself, again 
in bonds in Rome. 

Timothy actually was, after leaving Rome, so near Troas, on 
the iEgean coast, that Paul, in the second epistle to him, desired 
him to stop there for his cloak, books, and parchments, or else to 
obtain them from that place, and bring them with him to Rome, 
where the great Apostle was now again imprisoned. (2 Tim. 
iv. 13.) This, be it remarked, is positive evidence, depending in no 
degree on construction. And it renders it infallibly certain that 
Timothy was in the regions not far from Ephesus at this late 
period, the second epistle to him being of the date of A. D. 66. 
With such a positive basis, conjecture uses but moderate license 
in adding, that Timothy was in Ephesus itself, when this epistle 
was addressed to him. 

Timothy actually was, we now further assert, in Ephesus 
itself after being Paul's companion in his first imprisonment at 
Rome. The second epistle to him, written after that period, is 
still our authority. 1. Paul, as was not unusual with him, 
names the messenger by whom he sent this epistle, and says 
that he had despatched him to Ephesus — " Tychjcus have I sent 
to Ephesus." (2 Tim. iv. 12; see also Rom. xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17; 
xvi. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 16, 18 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; Phil. ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7, 9 ; 
Philem. 12; also 1 Pet. v. 12.) 2. Paul, in this second epistle, 
desires Timothy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and this 
excellent person's residence was in Ephesus. (2 Tim. iv. 19 ; 
comp. do. i. 16-18.) 3. In the first epistle, when Timothy was 
confessedly at Ephesus, Paul mentions Hymeneus and Alex- 
ander, as unfaithful ministers of that church ; in the second, 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 123 

epistle he again names the same persons to Timothy, (1 Tim. 
i. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; iv. 14 ; see also Acts xix. 33,) which implies 
that the latter was then also in that city. 4. Against this 
Alexander, a resident of Ephesus, though just then in Rome, 
opposing virulently the persecuted Paul, that apostle specially 
cautions Timothy, (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15,) which implies that Tim- 
oihy was even to continue in Ephesus after Alexander should 
return thither. 

Timothy actually was with Paul in these eastern parts, after 
their release at Rome. The language, "Erastus abode at 
Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick," implies 
that the whole four had recently been companions somewhere 
in those regions, as is allowed by Doddridge in the extract 
already given. 

We may here put together some of the incidents now proved, 
so as to throw much light on the proper date of the placing of 
Timothy at Ephesus. Paul and Timothy, with probably others, 
return from Rome to the eastern churches, visiting excursively 
among them, including Crete, where Titus was " left," and not 
forgetting Philippi. Erastus and Trophimus are then in com- 
pany with them on the shores of Asia Minor. They are in or 
near Ephesus. Paul desires Timothy to remain there as the 
head of that church, and proceeds without him through Troas 
to Macedonia, spending a winter at Nicopolis, in that province, 
or in Epirus. From Macedonia or Nicopolis, he goes on to 
Corinth, where Erastus remains, that city being his home. 
(Rom. xvi.) Thence he sails to Crete, where he leaves Trophi- 
mus sick at Miletus. And after that he is again at Rome, and 
again a prisoner, when he writes the second epistle to Timothy. 
Let the candid reader examine what has been offered under this 
third head, and determine whether this specification of some of 
the later travels of Paul, is not supported by sufficient scriptural 
evidence, and whether we have not here assigned the true date 
of the connexion of Timothy with the Ephesian church, as its 
ecclesiastical superior. 

Before proceeding, we ask the reader's further attention to 
another and interesting proof that Timothy went eastward, 
and to Ephesus, after he and Paul were at Rome, and that 
theirs* epistle to him was also written at this late date. We 
have seen that Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and " set at 
liberty."* An allusion to his trial on this occasion, is found in 

* Heb. xiii. 23. Some translate this expression " sent away," thus denying that 
Timothy had been a prisoner ; but we can find nothing to outweigh the rendering 
of our translators, "set at liberty ;" with which also agree Beza, Hammond. Calmet, 
Doddridge, and many others. Why does Paul say to the Philippians, " I trust in 
the Lord Jesus, to send Timotheus shortly unto you?" (Phil. ii. 19.) He sent 
Epaphroditus, but Timothy he only trusts or hopes to send, using the same lan- 
guage as in regard to leaving Rome himself, " I trust in the Lord, that I myself 
shall come shortly." This mode of speaking confirms the opinion that Timothy 
was, like the Apostle, a prisoner in Rome at that period. Epaphras, another com- 
panion of Paul, was also a prisoner with him at Rome. (See Philera. 23.) So like 



124 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS* 

the first epistle, (vi. 12,) " and hast professed a good profession 
before many witnesses." The words " professed a good profes- 
sion," may with equal propriety read " confessed a good confes- 
sion," and njv k<x\tiv ofio\oytav is so translated in the next verse, 
concerning Christ. Such language at once presents the idea 
that Timothy was a confessor, a term afterward applied to 
those Christians who were tried or severely dealt with by thqjr 
persecutors, but escaped with life ; the name martyr being 
appropriated to those who suffered death in the cause of their 
religion. In this view of Timothy's sufferings we see the con- 
nexion between this verse and the next, viz. Timothy confessed 
a good confession before many witnesses, as the Saviour wit- 
nessed a good confession before Pilate. This confession of 
Timothy was of course connected with his imprisonment at 
Rome, (or in Italy,) for we nowhere read of his being in prison, 
or suffering peculiar persecution, or any persecution in which 
he was so prominent as to be a conspicuous confessor, in any 
other place.* This explanation of the passage before us will, 
we think, bear investigation. And the result is, that Timothy 
had been in Rome with Paul, and had returned to the east, before 
he was placed over the church at Ephesus, and before the first 
epistle was written to him. 

To the late date thus given to the first epistle to Timothy, and 
his being stationed in Ephesus to govern its church, " there are 
three plausible objections, (says Macknight,) which must not be 
overlooked. 

"1. It is thought that if this epistle was written after the 
Apostle's release, he could not, with any propriety, have said to 

wise was Aristarchus. (See Col. iv. 10.) And these cases of the imprisonment of 
Paul's friends at that time, showing that such occurrences then took place, appear 
to us to settle the translation of the passage respecting Timothy, that lie had been 
4 ' set at liberty" from prison or arrest. 

* Commentators differ concerning the " profession" or " confession" of Timothy ; 
some making it a baptismal profession ; some, a profession when he was ordained ; 
some, a profession throughout his ministry, in the midst of opposition. None of 
these interpretations, however, agree with the comparing of Timothy's confession to 
that of Christ, in the next verse. Hence, other authors refer it to some Ephesian 
persecution of Timothy ; but of this, though much is recorded of Ephesian affairs, 
(Acts xix.) there is no evidence whatever. Aretius urges that it was a confession 
before heathen judges, in bonds, and with peril of life, " because the Apostle terms it 
Ka\ijv y a ' good' confession, that is, conspicuously excellent or illustrious, (specie*- 
saw,) and attended with danger ; moreover, because he adds that this confession was 
made before many witnesses, that is, with intrepidity, all danger of life being dis- 
regarded." This author notices, likewise, that such were afterward called "con- 
fessors," and were next in estimation to martyrs. He assigns not the time or place 
of this " confession" of Timothy ; but, as the only time we hear of his being under 
restraint was when he was in Rome (Italy) with Paul, the evidence, all that we 
have, favors our assertion that it was then and there that Timothy acquired the 
honor of ranking with "confessors." Calmet agrees that Timothy was a "con- 
fessor" at the hazard of his life. Hammond regards the "confession" as a " great 
persecution for the faith of Christ." We may add, that the margin, being one of 
mttch excellence, of a Scotch edition of the Bible, refers from each of the passages, 
now under notice, to the other — from the "good confession" to the "set at liberty," 
and vice versa. 1 Tim. vi. 12 ; Heb. xiii. 23. 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 125 

Timothy iv. 12, " Let no man despise thy youth." But it is re- 
plied, that Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus 
Gellius relates, (1. x. c. 28,) divided their age into three periods. 
Childhood, he limited to the age of seventeen : youth, from that 
to forty^six: and old age, from forty-six to the end of life. 
Now, supposing Timothy to have been 18 years old, A. D. 50, 
when he became Paul's assistant, he would be no more than 32, 
A. D. 64, two years after the Apostle's release, when it is sup- 
posed this epistle was written.* Wherefore, being then in the 
period of life which, by the Greeks as well as the Romans, was 
considered as youth, the Apostle with propriety might say to 
him, 'Let no man despise thy youth.' 

" 2, It is asked, What occasion was there, in an epistle written 
after the Apostle's release, to give Timothy directions concerning 
the ordination of bishops and deacons in a church where there 
were so many elders already ? (Acts xx. 17.) The answer is, 
the elders in the year 58 may have been too few for the church 
at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false 
teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and 
deacons might be needed than were necessary in the year 58. 
Not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others 
were wanted to supply their places." [The reader will observe 
that this argument of Dr. Macknight's implies that elders or 
presbyter-bishops were not allowed to ordain ; for if they had 
had that power, those already in Ephesus could have ordained 
as many as the growing church required : nor would Timothy's 
staying there to ordain have secured a majority of sound minis- 
ters ; for the unsound elders, if they could have ordained, might 
have added to their numbers as fast as they pleased, and so have 
defeated this object. Dr. Macknight was an eminent Presbyte- 
rian divine.] 

" 3. Because the Apostle wrote to Timothy that he l hoped to 
come to him soon,' (1 Tim. iii. 14,) it is argued, that the letter in 
which this is said, must have been written before he said to the 
Ephesian elders, (Acts xx. 25,) ' I know that all ye, among whom 
I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no 

more.' But, as it was no point of either faith or practice 

which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared 
nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had 
lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait far him in 
Cenchrea, to kill him. (Acts xx. 3.) This, with their fury on 
former occasions, [see also Acts xx. 22, 23, 24,] filled him with 
such anxiety, that in writing to the Romans from Corinth, he 



* Dr. Macknight's chronology differs from that of Bishop Lloyd, the one usually 
adopted, in that the former calculates the " fourteen years after," (Gal. ii. 1,) from 
the conversion of Paul, instead of his first visit to. Jerusalem, three years later, (Gal., 
i. 18.) According to Bishop Lloyd, Timothy became Paul's assistant, A. D. 53, 
(Acts xvi. 3,) and the first epistle to him was written, A. D. 65. If Timothy was 18 
years old at the first date, he was 30 at the second ; or if 21 at the first, he was &3aA 
the second. This latter age is hut youth, in most men. 
11* 



126 TIMOTHY AT EPHESDS. 

requested them to ' strive together with him in their prayers, that 
he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea.' (Rom. 
xv. 30, 31.) Further, that in his speech to the Ephesian elders, 
the Apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his 
fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from 
what he had said immediately before — ' Behold, I go bound in 
the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall 
me there ; save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, 
saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me. 5 Wherefore, al- 
though his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually 
visited the Ephesians after his release, his character as an in- 
spired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying ' he knew they 
should see his face no more,' he declared, as I have said, his own 
persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Gho3t." MacknighL 
iv. p. 160. 

In regard to this latter objection, that Paul was to see the 
elders of Ephesus no more, it is further to be remarked that he 
may have never seen them again, or have been in Ephesus itself, 
although he visited other eastern churches, and other parts of 
the iEgean coasts. He may, when he " was going into Mace- 
donia," have been in a vessel which but touched at Ephesus ; 
and so have left Timothy there, while he continued his voyage. 
Or, Timothy may, at that time, have been at Ephesus, and re- 
joined him in those parts, when Paul requested him to " abide" 
there " still." Or, without Timothy's thus rejoining him, Paul 
may have despatched a messenger or a letter to him, beseeching 
him to continue in that city ; the first epistle being afterward 
sent, as his full credentials in his high office. That Paul and 
Timothy revisited those regions after being in Rome, has, we 
think, been abundantly shown ; and either of the above suppo- 
sitions, each of them being perfectly natural, will meet the 
objection that Paul was to see the Ephesian elders no more. 
Doddridge, on this passage, observes — " I conclude that the 
Apostle had received some particular revelation, that, if he should 
ever return to these parts of Asia again, (as from Philem. 22, I 
think it probable he might,) yet that he should not have an op- 
portunity of calling at Ephesus, or of seeing the ministers whom 
he now addressed." 

As on the one hand there is good authority for interpreting 
the above declaration of Paul, (that he knew he would see those 
elders no more,) as being the mere suggestion of his apprehen- 
sions, (see Macknight, Hammond, Poole's Synopsis and Poole's 
Annot.) it is perfectly fair to suppose that both he and Timothy 
were now again in Ephesus, when he besought him to abide 
there as the head of its church. But if it be alleged, on the 
other hand, that this impression of Paul was prophetic and 
inspired, it is sufficient to say that he met Timothy or sent him 
a message, while somewhere near Ephesus, on his way to 
Macedonia, when, at the late period mentioned, he made this 
request of him. 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESOS. 127 

We shall add one more valuable extract from Macknight. 
(IV. 157.) 

" When the Apostle wrote his first epistle to Timothy, * he 
hoped to come to him soon. 1 (iii. 14.) But from the history of 
the Acts, it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after 
the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the Apostle 
say that he hoped to c come to him soon.' He could not say so 
in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at 
after leaving Ephesus : for at that time he was going into 
Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections [for the poor 
brethren in Jerusalem] from the churches in these provinces. 
[Acts xx, 1 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4, 5.] Neither could he say so after 
writing his second to the Corinthians, from Macedonia : for in 
that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with 
the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend 
him in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, (2 Cor. 
xi. 4,) and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea. 
(2 Cor. i. 16.) [See also Rom. xv. 25, 26, written at Corinth.] 
As little could he write to Timothy, that he ' hoped to come to 
him soon,' when he altered his resolution on occasion of the 
lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia; (Acts 
xx. 3 :) for he was then in such haste to be at Jerusalem on 
the day of Pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of 
going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that church to come 
to him. (Acts xx. 16, 17.) When he arrived in Judea he could 
not write that he ( hoped to come to Ephesus soon :' for he 
was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem. 
And having continued two years in prison at Caesarea, he was 
sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could 
not, till toward the conclusion of that confinement, write to 
Timothy that he c hoped to come to him soon.' And even then 
he did not write his first epistle to Timothy: for Timothy 
was with him at the conclusion of his confinement. (Philip, 
ii. 19-23.)" 

We feel confident that no ingenuity can overturn the mass of 
argument now adduced. And we therefore do not hesitate to 
answer finally the question,~When did Paul place Timothy over 
the church at Ephesus? He did so when they both were among 
the eastern churches after his first imprisonment in Rome, and 
not before, the date being A. D. 65, according to Bishop Lloyd's 
chronology.* 

At that time there was a body of clergy in Ephesus, for there 
had been five years or more previously, (Acts xx. 17;) and 
over these Timothy was placed as the supreme officer, soon 
afterward called a bishop. It matters little indeed in reference 
to the Episcopal argument whether Timothy found clergy in 



* Of modern authorities, besides Macknight, — T. Scott, A. Clarke, Bishop, Tomline, 
G. Townsend, and T. Hartwell Home, agree that the date of this epistle was after 
Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, and about the year we have assigned. 



128 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 

Ephesus, when he took charge of the church with the power of 
ordaining and governing; or whether there were none there as 
yet, and he was to ordain all that were required. In either case 
he would have the ordaining power, such as the apostles had, 
and such as presbyters (alone) are nowhere in Scripture said 
to possess. As, however, the truth is that there were clergy 
(« teachers") in Ephesus when Timothy was placed there, we 
have deemed it proper in the present article to illustrate and 
confirm this only sound view of the subject. 

We again, therefore, desire the reader to compare St. Paul s 
address to the elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx. 18-35,) with the 
epistles to Timothy, when afterward placed oyer them as their 
bishop. While the elders had no bishop, nothing was hinted of 
any ordaining or supreme clerical power in Ephesus. VVhen, 
however, a bishop was afterward resident with them, those 
powers are fully recognised as existing there in the person of 
Timothy : he is to " lay on hands ;" he is to '• receive accusations 
against elders;'' he is to "charge them to teach no false doc- 
trine •" " this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy. Ihe 
elders are never once mentioned as having these rights, or as 
sharing them. If our opponents say that he superseded the 
elders for a time, we first ask the proof that the latter had such 
powers before he came among them; we next ask the proof that 
they resumed such powers on his relinquishing that church, if 
he ever did: but no proof can be found for either of these 
points. Why should there not be scriptural evidence for Pres- 
byterian ordination, and that evidence as strong and as clear as 
for the (so called) evangelical right of ordination existing in 
Timothy ? How is it, if evangelical ordination (so called) was 
but temporary, while Presbyterian ordination was to be perma- 
nent, that the former stands broadly and for ever on > record^ 
while the latter has not one particle of proof positive m the New 

ThTEpiscopal solution of these questions is the only sound one. 

1 Ordination did not belong to evangelists merely as such, but 
to ministers of a fixed grade superior to elders or presbyters. 

2 Ordination by these superior officers was not to be tempo- 
rary, but permanent; and therefore this right as possessed by 
such officers, of apostolical or Episcopal rank stands broadly 
and for ever on record. 3. Ordination by inferior clergymen 
was never designed by Christ or the Apostles; and therefore 
the New Testament affords it not a particle of proof positive 
So clear is the Episcopal interpretation and view of these parts 

° f And Unworthy of note that the chief officer and the elders 
of the same church are thus set in contrast. Had indeed the 
address of Paul been to the elders of Antioch or Philippi, of 
Pontus or Illyricum, while the epistles were to Timothy in 
Ephesus, our argument would have been strong enough; as 
showing that the office of the latter was superior to that of the 



TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 129 

former. But as both belonged to the one church of Ephesus, 
we have the stronger argument, that that identical officer Timo- 
thy, was superior to that identical body of elders, and exercised 
his powers over the very church to which they belonged. 

In the full enjoyment of these powers, ordaining and supreme 
government, and fixed at Ephesus, with the exception of a visit 
to the venerable Paul when expecting martyrdom, the holy 
record completes its notice of Timothy, his eminent and most 
beloved son in the Gospel. The functions of the apostles and 
of their first Episcopal brethren were sometimes diocesan and 
sometimes excursive ; a bishop may perform Episcopal duty 
either way. Timothy appears to have often performed excur- 
sive Episcopal offices. But, from the tone of the two epistles, 
from the charge to him to oppose false teachers, while it yet 
is intimated that false teaching would continue even to the 
tt latter times," — from the warning given him respecting Alexan- 
der when he should return from Rome to Ephesus,— from the 
admonition to be faithful in his trust "till the appearing of 
Christ," i. e. till Timothy's own death, — from the intimation that 
his functions were to continue should Paul " tarry long," and 
its not being revoked in the second epistle, when he fully 
expected martyrdom, — from all these considerations, added to 
Paul's original request that he would remain indefinitely at 
Ephesus, we conclude, that from the time of that request, and 
when Scripture takes its leave of him, he was the diocesan 
bishop of the church in that city. 

H. U. O. 



From the Quarterly Christian Spectator, 

REVIEW. 



Answer to a Review (in the Quarterly Christian Spectator) of 
"Episcopacy Tested by Scripture;" jirst published in the Protestant 
Episcopalian for May, 1834. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding. 1834. 
pp. 19. 

When the review of the tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scrip- 
ture," was prepared,* it was not our design to engage in a con- 
troversy on the subject there discussed. We well knew how 
unprofitable and how endless such a controversy might become; 
and we felt that we had more important business to engage our 
attention, than that of endeavoring to defend the external order 
of the Church. The subject attracted our notice, because, on 
two different occasions, the tract which was the subject of the 
review, had been sent to us, in one instance accompanied with a 
polite request, — evidently from an Episcopalian, — to give to it 
our particular attention ; because, too, the tract had been pub- 
lished at the " Episcopal Press," and it was known that it would 
be extensively circulated ; because it had been the subject of no 
small self-gratulation among the Episcopalians, and had been 
suffered, notwithstanding the manifest complacency with which 
they regarded it, to lie unanswered ; but mainly, because it made 
an appeal at once to the Bible, and professed a willingness that 
the question should be settled by the authority of the Scriptures 
alone. This appeared to us to be placing the subject on new 
ground. The first emotion produced by the title of the tract 
was one of surprise. We had been so accustomed to regard this 
controversy as one that was to be settled solely by the authority 
of the fathers ; we had been so disheartened, and sickened by 
the unprofitable nature; the interminable duration, and the want 
of fixed bounds and principles, in that investigation ; we had 
seen so little reference made to the Bible, on either side of the 
question, that it excited in us no small degree of surprise to 
learn, that a bishop of the Episcopal Church should be willing 
to make a direct, decisive, and unqualified appeal to the New 
Testament. It was so unusual ; it gave so new a direction to 
the controversy ; it promised so speedy an issue, and one so 
little auspicious to the cause which the bishop was engaged in 
defending, thai we were not unwilling to turn aside from our 
usual engagements, and to examine the proofs adduced in this 
somewhat novel mode of the Episcopal controversy. 

* Christian Spectator, vol. vi. 

(130) 



REVIEW— ANSWER TO A REVIEW, ETC. 131 

Shortly after our review was published, an " Answer" to the 
article appeared in the "Protestant Episcopalian," understood 
to come from the author of the Tract. With a copy of this, the 
writer of the review was politely furnished by Dr. Onderdonk. 
The " Answer" is marked with the same general characteristics 
as the Tract itself. It evinces, in general, the same spirit of 
Christian feeling, and of candid inquiry; the same calm, col- 
lected, and manly style of argument; the same familiarity with 
the subject; and the same habit, — by no means as common as 
is desirable, — of applying the principles of the inductive philo- 
sophy to moral subjects. To this general statement, perhaps, 
should be made a slight exception. A candid observer possibly 
would discern in the "Answer" some marks of haste, and some 
indications of disturbed repose, — possibly of a slight sensation 
in perceiving that the material point of the argument in the 
Tract, had not been as strongly fortified as was indispensable. 
As instances of this sensation, we might notice the train of 
remarks in pp. 8, 9, and especially in the following expressions : 
" The reasonings throughout his article," (the reviewer's,) " are 
much the same as those usually brought against Episcopacy; 
and where they are not the same, they are so much minus the 
former ground," &c. "No one, for three years, brought these 
old reasonings against the Tract — no one, till the reviewer fancied 
he had discovered a weak spot in it, and might, therefore, re- 
produce some of them with effect." " The present is only a 
start in its slumber." And again, on page 15, the author of the 
reply speaks of the reviewer as one whom he suspects " to be a 
new comer into this field of controversy," if not with the inten- 
tion, at least with the appearance^ of designing to disparage the 
force of the arguments which the reviewer had urged. Now, it 
is unnecessary for us to remind Dr. Onderdonk, that the inquiry 
is not, whether the arguments are old or new, but whether they 
are pertinent and valid. Nor is the question, whether one is a 
" new comer" into this controversy. Arguments may not be the 
less cogent and unanswerable, for being urged by one who has 
not before entered the lists ; nor will arguments from the Bible 
be satisfactorily met by an affirmation that they are urged by 
one unknown in the field of debate. It may be proper, however, 
for us to observe, in self-vindication, that the arguments which 
we urged were drawn from no other book than the Bible. The 
" Tract" and the New Testament were the only books before us 
in the preparation of the article. The course of argument sug- 
gested was that only which was produced by the investigation 
of the Scriptures. Whether we have fallen into any train of 
thinking which has been before urged by writers on this sub- 
ject, we do not even now know, nor are we likely to know ; as 
it is our fixed purpose not to travel out of the record before us, 
— the inspired account of the matter in the sacred Scriptures. 
If, however, the arguments which we have urged, be " the same 
with those which are usually brought against Episcopacy," (p. 8,) 



132 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

it furnishes a case of coincidence of results, in investigating the 
New Testament, which is itself some evidence that the objec- 
tions to Episcopacy are such as obviously occur to different 
minds, engaged in independent investigation. 

When the reply appeared, it became a question with us 
whether the controversy should be prolonged. A perusal of the 
"Answer" did not suggest any necessity for departing from our 
original intention, not to engage in such a controversy. It did 
not appear to furnish any new argument, which seemed to call 
for notice, or to invalidate any of the positions defended in the 
review. Almost the whole of the "Answer" appeared to be 
simply an expansion of a note in the Tract, (p. 12, note z,) which, 
when the review was prepared, seemed not to furnish an argu- 
ment that required particular attention. The fact, too, that then 
the argument was expressed in a note, in small type, and at the 
bottom of the page, was an indication that it was not of much 
magnitude in the eye of the author of the Tract himself. Why 
it is now expanded, so as to constitute the very body and 
essence of the reply, is to us proof, that the subject, on the 
Episcopal side, is exhausted. This fact is of such a nature, as 
to impress the mind strongly with the belief, that henceforth 
nothing remains to be added, in the effort to "test Episcopacy 
by Scripture." 

In departing from our original purpose, it is our wish to 
reciprocate the kind feeling and candor of the author of the 
"Tract," and of the "Answer." Truth, not victory, is our 
object. We have but one wish on this subject. It is, that the 
principles upon which God designed to establish and govern his 
holy Church, may be developed and understood. We resume 
the subject with profound and undiminished respect for the 
talents, the piety, and the learning of the author of the Tract 
and Answer; and with a purpose that this shall be final, on our 
part, unless something new, and vital to the subject, shall be 
added. In this, as well as in all other things, our desire is, not to 
write one line, which, dying, — or in heaven, 

— \ye would wish to blot. 

Still, this desire, so deeply cherished, does not forbid a full and 
free examination of arguments. Our conscientious belief is, that 
the superiority " in ministerial power and rights," (Tract, p. 15,) 
claimed by Episcopal bishops, is a superiority known in the 
Episcopal churches only, and not in the New Testament ; and 
this we purpose to show. 

In entering upon our examination of the " Answer," we may 
remark, that the scriptural argument for Episcopacy is now 
fairly and entirely before the world. On the Episcopal side, 
nothing material to be said, can remain. The whole argument 
is in the Tract, and in the Answer. If Episcopacy is not estab- 
lished in these, we may infer that it is not in the Bible. If not 
in the Bible, it is not " necessarily binding." (Tract, p. 3.) To this 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 133 

conclusion, — that the whole of the material part of the scriptural 
argument is before the world, in these pamphlets,— we are con- 
ducted by the fact that neither talent, learning, zeal, nor time, 
have been wanting, in order to present it ; that their author en- 
tered on the discussion, manifestly acquainted with all that was 
to be said; that the subject has now boen before the public more 
than four years ; (see advertisement to the Tract ;) and that, 
during that time, it is to be presumed, if there had been any more 
material statements to be presented from the Bible, they would 
have appeared in the "Answer." There is much advantage in 
examining an argument, with the conviction, that nothing more 
remains to be said ; and that we may, therefore, contemplate it 
as an unbroken and unimproveable whole, without the possibility 
of any addition to the number of the arguments, or increase of 
their strength. On this vantage-ground we now stand, to con- 
template the argument in support of the stupendous fabric of 
Episcopacy in the Christian Church. 

In entering upon this examination, we are struck with — what 
we had indeed anticipated, — a very strong inclination, on the 
part of the author of the Tract, to appeal again to certain " ex- 
traneous" authorities, of which we heard nothing in the Tract 
itself, except to disclaim them. The Tract commenced with 
the bold and startling announcement, that if Episcopacy has not 
the authority of Scripture, it is not " necessarily binding." p. 3. 
" No argument," the Tract goes on to say, " is worth taking into 
the account, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and 
naked topic, — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." p. 3. We 
have italicised a part of this quotation, to call the attention of 
our readers particularly to it. The affirmation, so unusual in 
the mouth of an Episcopalian, is, that no argument is worth 
taking into the account, that does not bear on the scriptural 
proof. Now we anticipated that if a reply was made to our 
review, from any quarter, we should find a qualification of this 
statement, and a much more complacent regard shown to the 
fathers, and to other "extraneous considerations^ (Tract, p. 4,) 
than would be consistent with this unqualified disclaimer in the 
Tract. The truth is, that the fathers are regarded as too material 
witnesses, to be so readily abandoned. The i tradition of the 
elders,' has been too long pressed into the service of the Epis- 
copacy ; there has been too conscious a sense of the weakness 
of the scriptural proof, to renounce heartily, entirely, and for 
ever, all reliance on other proof than the New Testament. The 
u Answer" would have lacked a very material feature which we 
expected to find in it, if there had been no inclination manifested 
to plunge into this abyss of traditional history, where light and 
darkness struggle together, and no wish to recall the testimony 
of uninspired antiquity, to the service of prelacy. Accordingly, 
we were prepared for the following declaration, which we quote 
entire, from pp. 3 and 4, of the Answer : — 

u Because the author of the Tract rested the claims of Episco- 
12 



134 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

pacy finally on Scripture — because he fills a high office in the 
Church — and because the Tract is issued by so prominent an 
Episcopal institution as the c Press,' the reviewer seems to think 
that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn 
directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The author of the 
Tract, in his sermon at the consecration of the four bishops, in 
October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other grounds, 
on that of there being several grades of office in the priesthoods of 
all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil magistracies and 
other official structures, — and, in his late Charge, he adverted to 
the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. And the 
4 Press,' at the time it issued the Tract, issued also with it, in the 
'Works on Episcopacy,' those of Dr. Bowden and Dr. Cooke; 
which embrace the argument at large. There is no reason, 
therefore, for jinking, that, however a single writer may use 
selected arguments in a single publication, either he or other 
Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground they have 
usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this subject, 
because the fabric of the ministry which they describe forms an 
historical basis for interpreting Scripture. And general practice, 
in regard to distinct grades among officers, throws a heavier 
burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are adverse to 
Episcopacy: this latter topic we shall again notice before we 
close." 

This passage, so far from insisting, as the Tract had done, that 
no argument was worth taking- into the account, except the 
scriptural proof, refers distinctly to the following points, which 
we beg leave to call " extraneous considerations," as proof of 
Episcopacy. (1.) The fact, that there "are several grades of 
office in the priesthood of all religions;" (2.) That the same 
thing occurs " in all civil magistracies, and other official struc- 
tures;" (3.) The evidence of the fathers; and, (4.) "Other 
grounds," which the author informs us he had insisted on in an 
ordination sermon, in 1832. And in this very passage, he makes 
the following remarkable statement, which we propose soon to 
notice further, — " The fathers are consulted on the subject, be- 
cause the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an 
historical basis for interpreting Scripture." 

Slight circumstances often show strong inclinations and habits 
of mind. How strong a hold this reference to other "consider- 
ations" than the Scriptures, has taken upon the mind of the 
author of the Tract, and how reluctant he was to part with the 
" extraneous" argument from the fathers, is shown by the fact, 
that he again recurs to it in the " Answer," and presents it at 
much greater length. Thus on pp. 18, 19, at the very close of 
the Answer, we are presented with the following recurrence to 
the argument from other considerations than the Scriptures: — 

"One word more concerning the 'burden of proof,' as con- 
trasted with the * presumptive argument.' The Tract claimed 
no presumption in its favor in seeking for the scriptural proofs 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 135 

of Episcopacy. We do — a presumption founded on common 
sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and 
Episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office, both religious 
and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the 
Patriarchal Church, there was the distinction of c high priest' 
and ' priest.' In the Jewish Church, (common sense being, in 
this case unquestionably, divinely approved,) there were the 
high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans and Mahomet- 
ans, there are various grades in the office deemed sacred. Civil 
governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, 
an emperor, &c, as the heads of the general, or state, or provin- 
cial magistracies. In armies and navies, there is always a chief. 
If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply, they are ex- 
ceptions only, and very few in number. The general rule ii 
with us. That general rule, next to universal, is, that among 
officers, there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, 
call it what you will. And this general rule gives a presumption 
that such will also be the case in the Christian Church. We go 
to Scripture, then, with the presumptive argument fully against 
parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor 
parity, still common sense decides for the former. I[ we find 
the tone of Scripture doubtful, on this point, imparity has the 
advantage, common sense turning the scale. If we find there 
intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, 
common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for 
our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is 
supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit, 
to overturn the suggestion of common sense. The ' presump- 
tive argument,' then, is clearly with us, and the c burden of 
proof lies on parity. Let the reviewer peruse the Tract again, 
bearing in mind the principles laid down in this paragraph, and 
he will, we trust, think better of it." 

These observations, it will be remembered, are made by the 
same writer, and in connexion with the same subject, as the 
declaration, that " no argument is worth taking into the ac- 
count, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked 
topic, — the Scriptural evidence of Episcopacy" 

Now, against the principles of interpretation here stated, and 
which the Tract led us to suppose were abandoned, we enter our 
decided and solemn protest. The question, — the only question 
in the case, is, whether Episcopacy "has the authority of Scrip- 
ture?" (Tract, p. 3.) The affirmation is, that if it has not "it 
is not necessarily binding." (p. 3.) The principle of interpret- 
ation, which in the Answer is introduced to guide us in this 
inquiry, is, that "the fathers are consulted on the subject, 
because the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms 
an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." (Answer, p. 3.) In 
order to understand the bearing of this rule of interpretation it 
is necessary to know what it means. A "basis" is defined to be 
"the foundation of a thing; that oil which a thing stands or 



136 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

lies; that on which it rests; the ground-work or first principle; 
that which supports." Webster. " An historical basis" must mean, 
therefore, that the opinions, or facts of history, that is, in this 
case, the testimony of the fathers, constitute the foundation, the 
ground-work, or first principle of the interpretation of the Bible; 
or that on which such an interpretation rests, or by which it is 
supported. It would seem to follow, therefore, that unless we 
first become acquainted with this ''historical basis," we are 
wholly in the dark about the proper interpretation of the Bible, 
and that our interpretation is destitute of any true support and 
authority. To this principle of interpretation, in this case, and 
in all others, the objections are obvious and numerous. (1.) Our 
first objection lies against the supposed necessity of having any 
Such previously ascertained basis, in order to a just interpreta- 
tion of the oracles of God. We object wholly to the doctrine, 
that the Scriptures are to be interpreted by historical facts to be 
developed long after the book was written. The great mass of 
men are wholly incompetent to enter into any such " historical" 
inquiry ; but the great mass of men are not unqualified to un- 
derstand the general drift and tenor of the New Testament. 
(2.) The statement is, that "the fabric of the ministry which 
they describe," is to be the basis of such interpretation. But 
who knows what the fabric of the ministry which they describe 
is? It is to be remembered, that the question is not respecting 
the ministry in the fourth century and onward : but the inquiry, 
— and the only one of material value in any supposition, — per- 
tains to the fathers previous to that period. And there every 
thing is unsettled. Prelacy claims the fathers in that unknown 
age. The Papacy claims the fathers there. Presbyterianism 
claims the fathers there. Congregationalism and Independency, 
too, claim them there. Every thing is unsettled and chaotic. 
And this is the very point which has been the interminable 
subject of contention in this whole inquiry, and from which we 
hoped we had escaped, by the principles laid down in the Tract. 
Yet the position now advanced, would lead us again into all the 
difficulties, and controversies, and jostling elements, and contra- 
dictory statements, which have always attended the appeal to 
the fathers. If we are to wait until we have ascertained " the 
fabric of the ministry" which these fathers describe, before we 
have a "basis" for interpreting Scripture, we may close the 
New Testament in despair. (3.) This canon of interpretation 
is contrary to the rule which Dr. Onderdonk has himself laid 
down in the Tract t itself. (p. 3.) In that instance, the authority 
of the Scriptures 'was declared to be ample and final. And 
throughout the Tract there is a manifest indication of a belief, 
that the Bible is susceptible of interpretation, on the acknow- 
ledged rules of language, and the principles of common sense. 
We hailed such a manifestation, not only as auspicious to the 
cause of truth in regard to the claims of Episcopacy, but because 
it evinced the spirit to which the Church must come, — of a 



EPI3C0PACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 137 

direct, unqualified, and final appeal to the Word of God, — to 
determine religious doctrine. To that standard we mean to 
adhere. And, as far as in us lies, we intend to hold it up 
to the view of men, and to insist on the great truth from 
which nothing shall ever divert us, and from which we fer- 
vently pray the Church may never be diverted, that we are 
not to look for the discovery of truth, by ascertaining 7*rs£ an 
"historical basis," or, a set of instruments by wtiich we are to 
measure and adjust the proportions of truth which we find in the 
revelation of God. Without any design to disparage or under- 
value the fathers, whom we sincerely reverence, as haying been 
holy, bold, and venerable men ; without any blindness, as we 
believe, to the living lustre of that piety which led many of them 
to the stake j without any apprehension, that their testimony, 
when examined, would be found to be on the side of Episcopacy, 
— for it remains yet to be seen, that the fathers of the first two 
centuries ever dreamed of the pride and domination which sub- 
sequently crept into the Church, and assumed the form of pre- 
lacy and popery : without any thing to influence us, so far as we 
know, from any of these " extraneous" sources, we intend to do 
all in our power to extend and perpetuate the doctrine, that the 
ultimate appeal in all religious inquiry, is to be the Bible, and the 
Bible only. " The Bible," said Chillingworth, " is the religion 
of the Protestants." We rejoice to hear this sentiment echoed 
from the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania. And without mean- 
ing to insinuate, that this sentiment is not as honestly acted on 
by Epkcopalians as by any other denomination of Christians, 
we may add, that we deem the first sentence of the Tract worthy 
to be written in letters of gold, on the posts of every Episcopal 
sanctuary, and over every altar, and on the cover of every " Book 
of Common Prayer." " The claim of Episcopacy to be of Divine 
institution^ and therefore obligatory on the Church, rests funda- 
mentally on the one question, — Has it the authority of Scripture^ 
If it has not, it is not necessarily binding." (4.) Our fourth 
objection to this rule of interpretation is, that it is, substantially, 
that on which rests the papal hierarchy. We do not know that 
the Papist would wish to express his principles oF interpretation 
in stronger language, than that "the fathers are consulted on 
this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they de- 
scribe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." To 
us it seems, that this would express all that they ask ; and as we 
doubt not that Dr. Onderdonk would shrink from any approxi- 
mation to the Papacy, quite as firmly as ourselves, we deem it 
necessary merely to suggest the consideration, to render the 
objection at once satisfactory to his own mind. 

We object, also, to the principle of interpretation advanced on 
p. 18, of the Answer, which we have already quoted. The face 
there assumed, is, that various orders of men are observable in 
civil governments, &c. ; and hence, that there is presumptive 
evidence, that such orders are to be found in the Scriptures. We 
12* 



138 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

are not ignorant of the purpose for which this fact is adduced. 
It is to show, that the kC burden of proof" does not lie so entirely 
on the Episcopalian, as we had affirmed in the Review. We 
admit, to some extent, the modifying force of the circumstances, 
so far as the " burden of proof" is concerned. But it merely 
lightens the burden ; it does not remove it. Presumption, in 
such a case, is not proof. When the fact affirmed relates to a 
doctrine of the Bible, it is not sufficient to say, that that fact 
occurred elsewhere, and therefore it must occur in the Bible. It 
is still the business of the Episcopalian, to prove his affirmation 
from the New Testament itself, that bishops are superior to other 
ministers of the Gospel, in ministerial power and rights. This 
is his affirmation ; this is the point which he urges ; this is to be 
made out from the Bible only; and assuredly the fact, that there 
are dukes, and earls, and emperors, and admirals, and nabobs, 
forms, at best, a very slight presumption in favor of the affirmation, 
that the ministry of the Gospel consists of three 'orders.' But 
our objections may be further stated. So far as the presumption 
goes, it is not particularly in favor of Episcopacy, as consisting 
in three orders of the clergy. For, (I.) The fact is not, that 
there are three orders observable every where. It is, that there 
are many orders and ranks of civil officers and of men. (2.) The 
presumption drawn from what has taken place, would be rather 
in favor of despotism, and the papacy. (3.) The presumption is 
equally met by the doctrine of Presbyterianism as by prelacy. 
Presbyterians hold equally to a division of their community into 
various ranks, — into bishops, and elders, and deacons, and peo- 
ple. The presumption, drawn from the fact that civil society is 
thus broken up, is as really in their favor, as in favor of Epis- 
copacy. (4.) The Congregational ist may urge it with the same 
propriety. His community registers the names of his minister, 
and deacons, and church, and congregation, each with distinct 
privileges and rights. If Dr. Onderdonk should reply to this, 
that his remark referred only to the distinction of " systems of 
office, both religious and civil," (p. 18,) and "that among officers, 
there is a difference of power and rights," (p. 19,) we reply, that 
the distinction of officers pertains to other churches, as well as 
the Episcopal. No Non-episcopalian, perhaps, can be found, 
who holds to a parity of office. He will refer, at once, to his 
minister, to his elders, to his deacons, as evincing sufficient 
disparity, to meet the full force of the presumption alleged by 
Dr. Onderdonk. But our main objection here, as before, is to the 
principle of interpretation. We respectfully insist, that it should 
be laid aside, as an " extraneous consideration," in the inquiry, 
whether Episcopacy " has the authority of Scripture," 
' In our review, we stated that the burden of proof, in this inquiry, 
was laid wholly on the friends of Episcopacy, (p. 7.) This point 
was so obvious, that we did not think it necessary to illustrate it 
at length. Nor do we now intend to do more than merely, by 
adverting to it, to recall it to the attention of our readers. The 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 139 

author of the " Answer" has endeavored to remove this burden 
from himself and his friends, (p. 4, and p. 18.) This he has 
done, by attempting to show that there is a presumptive argu- 
ment in favor of Episcopacy ; which presumption throws the 
task of proving the parity of the clergy on those who advocate 
it. Now we are not disposed to enter into a controversy on this 
point. To us it seemed, and still seems, to be a plain case, that 
where it was affirmed that the clergy of the Christian Church 
was separated, by Divine authority, into three grades, or orders, 
and that one of those orders had the exclusive right of ordina- 
tion, of discipline, and of general superintendence; it could not 
be a matter requiring much deliberation, to know where rested 
the burden of proof. If a man assumes authority over an 
army, demanding the subordination of all other officers to his 
will, it is not a very unreasonable presumption, that the burden 
of proof lies with him ; nor would it. be the obvious course, to 
expect the entire mass of officers to show, that he had not 
received such a commission. We shall, therefore, feel ourselves 
to be pursuing a very obvious course, if we do not recognise the 
authority of Episcopal bishops, unless there is proof positive of 
their commission. We may add further, that in the supposed 
case of the commander of the army or the navy, we should not 
regard that as a very satisfactory proof, which was pursued with 
as little directness and explicitness as are evinced in the argu- 
ment to establish the original domination and perpetuity of the 
prelatical office. And in this connexion we may remark, that it 
is perfectly immaterial, as to the main point, what may be the 
opinion of the man who calls the claim in question, or what 
may be the particular denomination to which he is attached. 
Whether he is an Independent, a Presbyterian, or a Congrega- 
tionalism it may be equally true, that the bishop of the Episcopal 
Church is unable to make out his claims from the New Testa- 
ment. The only material point, in which all other denomina- 
tions are agreed, is, that the ministers of the New Testament are 
on an equality, m the respect under consideration ; that the 
power of ordaining, and administering discipline, and of super- 
intending the concerns of the Church, is intrusted to them, as 
equals, in opposition to the exclusive and exalted assumptions of 
a few, who claim the right to deprive them of these powers, and 
to make their ministrations null and void. And when claims of 
this order are advanced, — claims designed to dispossess the great 
mass of the ministry throughout the world, of the right of trans- 
mitting their office to others ; of exercising government and dis- 
cipline in their own pastoral charges; of superintending and 
controlling the affairs of the particular portion of the Church 
universal, with which they are specifically intrusted; when 
claims like these are presented, tending to degrade them from 
their office, to annihilate their authority, and to leave their charges 
without a ministry ; — we may respectfully insist, that the proof 
of this should be drawn, by no circumlocution, from the Bible. 



140 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

We wish to see, with great pertinency, the chapter, and the 
verse : we can with difficulty resist the impression that it should 
be done totidem verbis, or at least, so nearly so, that there could 
be no possibility of mistake. 

We may here remind our readers of the precise points which 
Episcppacy is called upon to make out. The first is, that the 
apostles were "distinguished from the elders, because they were 
superior to them in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) 
The second is, that this distinction " was so persevered in, as to 
indicate that it was a.- permanent arrangement." (Tract, p. 23.) 
These are independent propositions. One by no means follows 
from the other. Should the first be admitted, yet the second is 
to be established by equally explicit and independent proof. 
Nay, the second is by far the most material point, and should, 
as we shall show, be fortified by the most irrefragable arguments. 
The third point, indispensable to the other two, is, that there is 
no evidence in the New Testament, that presbyters, or elders, 
discharged the functions which are now claimed for bishops ; that 
is, that they either (1.) ordained, or (2.) exercised discipline, or 
(3.) exerted a general supervision. (Tract, p. 11.) Unless then 
it is shown, that not one of these functions was ever performed 
by presbyters, the Episcopal claim fails of support, and must be 
abandoned. These are independent positions, and a failure in 
one, is a failure in the whole. 

To a cursory review of what can be said on these points, we 
now propose to call the attention of our readers. 

The first claim asserted, is, that the apostles were " distin- 
guished from the elders, because they were superior to them, in 
ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) The points of 
their alleged superiority, are, exclusive ordination, exclusive 
discipline, exclusive confirmation, and exclusive right of general 
superintendence. The question is, whether this is the nature of 
the superiority with which the apostles were intrusted j or, 
which is the same Ming, were these the purposes for which they 
were set apart to the apostolic office, and for which they were 
called apostles? Dr. Onderdonk affirms it ; we take the liberty, 
most respectfully, of calling for explicit proof of it, from the 
New Testament. 

His direct proof is contained in a nut-shell. It consists of one 
expression of Scripture, (Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22; xvi. 4,) — "Apostles 
and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren ;" and a note 
on p. 12, of the Tract, and in the reply expanded to more than 
two pages, showing that, in his apprehension, they administered 
discipline. As this is the basis on which the whole fabric is 
reared, and as it embraces the very gest of the "Answer," we 
shall be pardoned for adverting to it with some particularity. 

We may then inquire, why the apostles were distinguished 
from the elders, orpresby ters ? Dr. Onderdonk affirms, that it was 
because they were "superior in ministerial power and rights." 
The argument on this subject, from the New Testament, is, that 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 141 

the two classes of men are distinguished from each other, (Acts 
xv. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi. 4,) by the following expressions ; "apostles 
and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren." Now in re- 
gard to this proof, we beg leave to make the following remarks : — 

(1.) That it is the only direct passage of Scripture, which Dr. O. 
is*ble to adduce, on the subject of the alleged superiority of the 
apostles. Its importance, in his view, may be seen from the 
fact, that it is not merely the only proof, but, that it is repeated 
not less than five times, in the space of less than a single page of 
the Tract, (pp. 14, 15,) and that it occupies a similar prominence 
in the Answer. The Tract has been written four years. Dili- 
gent research during that time, it would be supposed, might have 
led to the discovery of some other text, that had a bearing on 
the point. But the matter still rests here. There is no other 
text ; and the fabric is to be sustained on the solitary expression, 
"'apostles -and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren." 

(2.) What does this passage prove? It proves this„ and no 
more, that there was a distinction of .some sort between the 
apostles and elders, which is a point of just as much importance, 
as when we affirm that one class were called apostles and 
another called elders. But it is difficult for us to see how this 
determines any thing respecting the reasons of the distinction. 
In Ephesians iv. 11, the Apostle affirms that God gave some, 
apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
some, pastors and teachers. Here a distinction is made out. 
But is the nature of the distinction thereby ascertained ? I speak 
of guineas, and doubloons, and guilders. I affirm a distinction, 
indeed ; but is its nature ascertained ? Have I determined that 
'the guinea is, therefore, superior in weight or value to the 
others ? 

(3.) We have never denied that there was a distinction 
between the apostles, and elders, and brethren. The very fact 
that they had the name apostles, shows that there must have 
been some distinction, or some reason why they were so called. 
Unusual discernment, or labored argument, surely, are not 
necessary to perceive this. But the very point is, what is the 
nature of this distinction? And this is to be settled, not by the 
use of the word, but by the statement in the New Testament ; 
and it is incumbent on the Episcopalian to show by proof-texts, 
that it was because the apostles were superior in the power of 
ordination, of confirmation, of discipline, and of general super- 
intendence of a diocese. Dr. Onderdonk affirmed, that the 
name was not so given, because they were appointed by Christ 
personally; nor because they had seen the Lord after his resur- 
rection ; nor because they had the power of working miracles : 
and then observed, that " it followed, or would not be question- 
ed, that it was because they were superior in ministerial power 
and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) It seems not to have occurred to 
him, that they could be appointed to be witnesses of his entire 
ministry, including the fact of his resurrection as a main point. 



142 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

We took the liberty, therefore, of examining this matter, as very 
material to the argument. We proved, (1.) That in the original 
appointment of the Apostles, there was no reference to their supe- 
riority in the powers of ordination, discipline, &c. (Review, p.10.) 
This position we supported by the three separate accounts of 
Matthew, Mark and Luke. (2.) That no such thing occurred in 
the instructions of our Lord, after his resurrection from the 
dead. This also we confirmed, by an examination of the testi- 
mony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, in neither of whose gospels 
was there found a vestige of such instructions. (Review, p. 10.) 
(3.) That there was nowhere else in the New Testament, 
any account that what Dr. O. affirmed as the peculiarity of the 
apostolic office, was known to the writers. This conclusion we 
rested upon our own examination, and the fact that Dr. O. had 
not adduced any such passage. (4.) That the reason of the 
appointment to the apostolic office was expressly affirmed ; and 
that it was not that which Dr. O. supposed it to be. We 
showed, (a) that it was expressly affirmed in the original 
appointment, (Luke xxiv. 48; Matt, xxviii. 18, 19,) that they 
should be witnesses of these things ; (Review, p. 12 ;) (b) that 
this was expressly provided for in the case of the election of one 
to fill the place vacated by Judas ; (Acts i. 21, 22 ;) (c) that 
this was the account which the Apostles uniformly gave of the 
design of their appointment; (see p. 13;) (d) that the same 
thing was again expressly provided for in the case of the Apos- 
tle Paul, and, that in order to a qualification for that office, he 
was permitted to "see the Just One," the Lord Jesus ; (Acts xxii. 
14;) and, (e) that he himself expressly appeals to the fact, as a 
proof that he was fully invested with the apostolic office. (1 Cor. 
ix. 1, 2.) (See Review, p. 15.) In the course of the argument, 
we adduced not less than twenty explicit passages of Scripture, 
bearing directly on the point, and proving, beyond dispute, that 
this was the design of the appointment to the apostolic office. 
Our purpose in this was evident. It was to show, that the pecu- 
liarity of the apostolic office was of such a nature that it could 
not be transmitted to distant generations ; but that it had a spe- 
cific, yet very important design, which, as a matter of course, 
must cease. 

With deep interest, therefore, we opened the " Answer," to 
ascertain how this array of scriptural argument was met We 
did not deem it unreasonable to suppose that there would be 
some new attempt to show, that the peculiarity of the apostolic 
office was to ordain ; that the passages of Scripture on which 
we had relied were irrelevant; or, that other passages might be 
adduced in proof of what Dr. O. had affirmed to be the pecu- 
liarity of the apostolic office, and which we had respectfully 
denied. Our readers will join with us in our ' amazement,' to 
find the following as the result of an examination of the 
" Answer." 

(1.) A solemn, and somewhat pompous re-adducing of the 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 143 

expression, (Acts xv.,) "the apostles and elders," " the apostles, 
and elders, and brethren ;" (Answer, p. 7 ;) a passage main- 
taining still its solitary dignity, and reposing in the "Answer," 
as it had in the " Tract," in its own lonely grandeur. We could 
not restrain our ' amazement,' that no other passages were even 
referred to, on this material point ; and we came to the conclu- 
sion, that we had reached an end of the argument, so far as 
direct Scripture proof was concerned. 

(2.) We found a notice of our extended array of proof-texts, 
showing what was the design of the apostolic appointment, of a 
character so remarkable that we shall quote it entire. 

11 The reviewer, in order to show what he thinks was the 
point in which the apostles excelled the elders, in the matter in 
question, dwells largely on the fact that they were special wit- 
nesses of our Lord's resurrection; and with the help of capital 
and italic letters, he has certainly made a showy argument. 
But nobody denies that they were the special witnesses, or, that 
they were distinguished from the elders, as well as from others 
called apostles, — the Tract gave due attention to both these parti- 
culars. The point is, Was this distinction the one that led to 
the expression, ( apostles and elders?' Surely not. Among 
those apostles was Barnabas, and perhaps Silas, (Acts xiv. 14 ; 
xv. 2, 4, 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; ii. 6,) neither of whom was a special 
witness of the resurrection. Besides, the expressions ' apostles 
and elders,' l apostles, and elders, and brethren,' are used 
with immediate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and the 
reviewer is more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say 
why, in a council acting on questions concerning ' idols, blood, 
thing3 strangled, and licentiousness,' the special witnesses of 
the resurrection should, as such, have peculiar authority. We 
really think the Tract argues with more consistency when it 
says that the apostles were ministerially above the elders." 
Answer, p. 16. 

Here, it will be observed, there is no notice taken of the texts 
which we had adduced, as irrelevant, or unsatisfactory in number, 
or as unfairly interpreted. Dr. Onderdonk, if he was the writer of 
the Answer, deemed it an ample notice of those texts to remark, 
that " with the help of capital and italic letters, he (the review- 
er,) had certainly made a showy argument." (Answer, p. 16.) 
That our argument was thus noticed, was, indeed, to us a mat- 
ter of ' amazement.' It was, however, an indication, of which 
we were not slow to avail ourselves, and the hold upon which 
we shall not be swift to lose, that our proof-texts were ad rem, 
and that they settled the question. When all that the Assistant 
Bishop of Pennsylvania deems it proper to say of our array of 
more than twenty explicit declarations of the Word of God, is, 
that by the help of capitals and italics, they constitute a 
"SHOWY argument," (we mean no disrespect, when we dis- 
play the word in a showy form,) we deem the conclusion to be 
inevitable, that our texts are just what we intended they should 



144 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

be,— that they settled the question, — and, to use an expression 
from the favorite chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we "rejoice 
for the consolation." Acts xv. 31. 

(3.) Though we were not met by any new proof-texts, or by 
any answer to our own, we were referred to the sentiments of 
the following distinguished men, viz. the late Dr. Wilson, Dr. 
Miller, Dr. Campell, Matthew Henry, Ci the divines who argued 
with Charles I. in the isle of Wight," and Calvin, to prove, that 
the apostles were superior to the elders, and the evangelists. 
(Answer, p. 10.) Respecting these authorities, we may be per- 
mitted to remark, (1.) that we shall probably not yield, out of 
regard to their names, to any persons. With us, they have all 
the authority which uninspired men can ever be allowed to have. 
The writer of the Review may be permitted to remark, perhaps, 
that he has occasion of peculiar respect for two of those venera- 
ble men. By one, — whose superior, in profound powers of 
reasoning, in varied and extensive learning, and in moral worth, 
he believes, is not now to be found among the living, in any 
American church,— he was preceded in the office which he now 
holds. At the feet of the other, it has been his privilege to sit, 
for nearly four years, and to receive the instructions of wisdom 
from his lips ; and, whatever skill he may have in conducting 
this argument on the government of the churches, he owes to 
the "basis" which was laid by those instructions. Whatever 
may be said, therefore, of these authorities adduced in the 
" Answer," will not be traced to want of respect for these vene- 
rable names. But, (2.) we may remark, that in this argument, 
the authorities of uninspired men are to be laid out of the ac- 
count. With all due deference to them, and to Dr. O., we must 
be permitted to believe, that their authority belongs to the " ex- 
traneous considerations," as well as that of the opinion of Cran- 
mer, (Answer, p. 5,) which, by common consent, U had been 
agreed to lay out of the controversy. (See Tract, pp. 3-10; Review, 
p. 5.) Our wonder is, that after the disclaimer of relying on 
these extraneous considerations, in the Tract, the author of the 
Answer should have occupied nearly two pages, with the state- 
ments of these distinguished men. (3.) Their authority, even 
when adduced, does not bear on the point before us. The ques- 
tion is, whether the apostles were superior to other ministers of 
the Gospel, in ministerial power and rights? that is, in the 
power of ordination, confirmation, discipline^ and general super 
intendence. Their authorities adduced, prove only, that in the 
judgment of these venerable men, they were superior in some 
respects, to evangelists and teachers ; or, that there was a dis- 
tinction between them, — a point on which we make no denial. 
On the only question in debate, they make no affirmation. On 
the claims set up by Episcopalians, that the apostles were supe- 
rior in ordination, &c, they concede nothing, nor did they believe 
a word of it. 

Having thus noticed the "Ajiswer" on this part of our argu- 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 145 

ment, we shall dismiss it. We do it by simply reminding our 
readers, that the solitary text which undisputed learning, talents, 
and zeal have discovered, during a period of more than four 
years, since the discussion first commenced, — the lonely Scripture 
proof of the sweeping claims, that the apostles only had the 
power of ordination, and that this was the peculiarity of the 
office, — stands forth in the Tract, and in the Answer: "the 
apostles and elders," "apostles, and elders, and brethren !" 

But the author of the "Answer" complains, (p. 11,) that we 
did not give the ' whole 5 of his argument on the subject; and he 
refers to a note on p. 12 of the Tract, designed to show that 
the apostles had the power of administering discipline, and that 
therefore they were superior to the presbyters, or held a more 
elevated grade of office. The note is this :•— 

" That the apostles alone ordained, will be proved. In 1 Cor. 
iv. 19-21; v. 3-5; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 
1 Tim. i. 20; are recorded inflictions and remissions of disci- 
pline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, 
although there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly 
were in Ephesus." 

This note he expands into an argument, which constitutes the 
most material part of the " Answer." It is incumbent upon us 
to examine it, and to ascertain how far it goes to settle the point 
under discussion. Before examining the particular cases re- 
ferred to, we would remind our readers that the purpose for 
which they are adduced, is to show that the apostles were 
superior to presbyters in power and rights; and the alleged 
proof is, that they administered discipline. To bear on the 
case, therefore, the passages must prove not only that they 
exercised discipline, but, (1.) That they did it as apostles, or in 
virtue of the apostolic office ; (2.) That they did it in churches 
where there were presbyters ; and, (3.) That presbyters never 
administered discipline themselves. The second point here 
adverted to, is all that the author of the "Answer" feels himself 
called upon to make out. (Answer, pp. 11-13.) Now in regard to 
this point of the proof, we make the following general remarks: 
(1.) There were certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and if we 
may credit the writer of these pamphlets, and reckon Timothy, 
and Barnabas, and Sylvanus, and Apollos, and Andronicus, and 
Junia, and Titus, and perhaps half a dozen others, there were 
somewhat more than a score invested with this office ; yet it is 
remarkable, that the only cases of discipline referred to, as going 
to prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, are 
cases in which the Apostle Paul only was concerned. (2.) There 
are accounts in the New Testament of perhaps some hundreds 
of churches ; and yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of 
discipline relied on, except in the single churches of Corinth 
and Ephesus. It is incredible, that there should have been no 
other cases of discipline in these churches. But if there were, 
the presumption is, that they were settled without the interven- 
13 



146 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

tion of an apostle. (3.) These very cases, as we shall presently 
*how, were cases in which Paul administered the rod of discipline 
in the churches where Titus and Timothy,— apostles also and 
bishops, — were present, by the showing of the author of the 
" Answer," and thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the 
authority of those prelates. And if the fact, that the discipline 
was administered where there were presbyters, (Answer, pp. 
11, 12,) proves that the Apostle was superior to them, the same 
fact proves that he was superior to Timothy and Titus. The 
course of the argument urged by the author of the "Answer/' 
would be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole power 
into his own hands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops 
and presbyters. It has a very undesirable looking toward the 
authority claimed by the Papacy. 

The two cases alleged as proof that the apostles only had the 
power of administering discipline, are those at Corinth and at 
Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and wrote them to 
eight churches. In all these epistles, and in all the numerous 
churches of which he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, " the care 
of all the churches,") these are the only instances in which he 
was called, so far as 'appears, to exercise discipline. We now 
inquire, whether he did it for the purpose of showing that the 
apostles only had this power 1 

The first case alleged, is that at Corinth. "In 1 Cor. iv. 
19-21, &c, are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline 
performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part; although 
there must have been elders at Corinth." (Note z, Tract, p. 12.) 
The argument here is, that there must have been elders at 
Corinth, and yet that Paul interposed over their heads to inflict 
discipline. This is thewhole of the argument. (See Answer, p. 11.) 

In reply to these, we observe : That there were elders, teach- 
ers, ministers, instructers in Corinth, we think is placed beyond 
a question, by the argument of the " Answer," and by the nature 
of the case. This fact we do not intend to call in question. 
The argument of the " Answer" from this fact, we state in the 
author's own words : — 

" Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the 
epistles show — though they doubtless were noticed and consulted, 
as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — 
without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it 
through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline 
among the people of their charge. This is a ' ministerial' act. 
And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, 
shows that he, an apostle, was c superior to them in ministerial 
power and rights. 5 " p. 11. 

Further, if there were elders there, there was an " apostle," 
a prelatical bishop, according to the Tract, there also. This is 
shown by a quotation from the epistle itself, relating to this very 
time, and in immediate connexion with the case of discipline. 
(1 Cor. iv. 17.) " For this cause, [that is, on account of your 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 147 

divided and contending state,] have I sent unto you Timotheus. 
who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall 
bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christj 
as I teach every where in every church." Now, as it will not 
be pretended by Episcopalians that Timothy was not an " apos- 
tle," and as it is undeniable that he was at that time at Corinth, 
the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to admin- 
ister discipline in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, 
then, the words of the Answer, we would say : " Yet without 
noticing" this apostle " in the matter, so far as the epistles 
show, — though" he was "doubtless noticed and consulted, as 
much as courtesy and his" apostolical " standing made proper ; 
without putting the matter into" his " hands, or even passing it 
through" his " hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci- 
pline. This is a ' ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself 
instead of committing it to" Timothy, "shows, that he, an apos- 
tle, was superior to" him " in ministerial power and rights." 
Now no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed 
with the fallacy of this reasoning, in regard to the " apostle" 
and " bishop" Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as perti- 
nent and forcible in his case, as it is for the purpose of the An- 
swer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It cannot be pretended 
that a difference existed, because the " elders" were permanently 
located there, and Timothy not ; for the argument of the 
" Tract" and the " Answer" is, that the apostles were superior 
as apostles, and therefore it made no difference on this point 
whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch ; they 
were invested with the apostolic office every where. Our con- 
clusion from this instance, and from the fact which we have 
now stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at 
Corinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of discipline by 
presbyters difficult ; which operated equally against any interfer- 
ence by Timothy ; and which called peculiarly for the inter- 
position of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, 
—for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, 
here denominated " delivering unto Satan for the destruction of 
the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5,) — a power which could be exercised by 
none then in Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are 
any reasons for this opinion ? The following we believe satis- 
factory : — 

(1.) Paul had founded that church. (Acts xviii. 1-11,) and 
his interference in cases of discipline would be regarded as pecu- 
liarly proper. There would be a natural and obvious deference 
to the founder of the church, which would render such an inter- 
position in the highest degree appropriate. We are confirmed 
in this view, because he puts his authority in this very case on 
such a fact, and on the deference which was due to him as their 
spiritual father. 1 Cor. iv. 15 — "For though ye have ten 
thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; 
for in Christ Jesus /have begotten you through the Gospel" 



148 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

(2.) The circumstances of the church at Corinth were such, 
evidently, as to render the ordinary exercise of discipline by 
their own elders impossible. They were distracted ; were rent 
into parties ; were engaged in violent contention ; and the 
authority, therefore, of one portion of the "teachers," and 
" instructers," would be disregarded by the other. Thus no 
united sentence could be agreed upon ; and no judgment of a 
party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline 
would only enkindle party animosity, and produce strife. (See 
chap. i. 11-17.) So great, evidently, was the contention, and so 
hopeless the task of allaying it by any ordinary means, that 
even Timothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose 
of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17,) 
could have no hope, by his own interference, of allaying it. 
It was natural that it should be referred to the founder of the 
church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender. 

(3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary 
case of discipline. It was one that required the severest exer- 
cise of authority, and in a form which was lodged only with 
tlnpse intrusted with the power of inflicting disease, or, as it 
is termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction of the 
flesh." (1 Cor. v. 5.) Such cases would inevitably devolve upon 
the Apostles, as clothed with miraculous power ; and such, 
beyond all controversy, was this case. It therefore proves 
nothing about the ordinary mode of administering discipline. 
This case had reached to such a degree of enormity ; it had 
been suffered to remain so long ; it had become so aggravated, 
that it was necessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to 
decide it. Yet, 

(4.) The Apostle supposes that they ought to have exercised 
the usual discipline themselves. This is evident, we think, 
from a comparison of the following passages : 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 
12, with v. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did them- 
selves usually exercise discipline. Paul (verse 9) gave them 
the general direction, not to keep company with fornicators; 
that is, to exercise discipline on those who did. In verse 11, he 
asks them, in a manner showing that the affirmative answer to 
the question expressed their usual practice, whether they did not 
"judge those that were within?" that is, whether they did not ordi- 
narily exercise discipline in the church ? And in verse 2, he sup- 
poses that it ought to have been done in this case; and as it had 
not been done by them, and the affair had assumed special enor- 
mity, he exercised the miraculous power intrusted to him, by 
inflicting on the offender a grievous disease. (Verses 4, 5; comp. 
1 Cor. xi. 30.) 

(5.) It is evident that other churches did, in ordinary cases, 
exercise discipline without the intervention of an apostle. Thus 
the church in Thessalonica, where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, 
has never been able even to conjecture that there was a diocesan 
bishop, was directed to exercise discipline in any instance where 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 149 

the command of the inspired Apostle was not obeyed. (2 Thess. 
iii. 14.) We shall soon make this point incontestable. 

(6.) The circumstances of the early churches were such as to 
make this apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable, 
without supposing that it was to be a permanent arrangement. 
They were ignorant and feeble. They had had little opportunity 
of learning the nature of Christianity. In most cases, their found- 
ers were with them but a few weeks, and then left them under 
the care of elders ordained from among themselves. (Com p. Acts 
xiii. xiv. et passim.) Those elders would be poorly qualified 
to discharge the functions of their office ; and they would be 
but little elevated, in character and learning, above the mass of 
the people. The churches must be imperfectly organized ; unac- 
customed to rigid discipline ; exposed to many temptations ; 
easily drawn into sin; and subject to great agitation and excite- 
ment. Even a great many subjects which may now be consi- 
dered as settled, in morals and religion, would appear to them open 
for debate 5 and parties, as at Corinth, would easily be formed. 
(Comp. Acts xiv. xv. ; Rom. xiv.; 1 Cor. viii.) In these circum- 
stances, how natural was it for these churches to look for direc- 
tion to the inspired men who had founded them ? and how 
natural, that such persons should interpose and settle important 
and difficult cases of discipline? And after these obvious 
considerations, are we to suppose that the fact that the Apostle 
Paul, in two cases, and two such cases only are recorded, exer- 
cised an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be regarded as 
proof that this power appertained only to the apostolic office, 
and was to be a permanent arrangement in the Church ? We 
confess our c amazement, 5 that but two cases of apostolic inter- 
ference are mentioned during the long and active life of Paul ; 
and we regard this as some evidence that the churches were 
expected to exercise discipline, and actually did so, on their own, 
members. 

(7.) We are confirmed in our views on this point from what 
is known to take place in organizing churches in heathen coun- 
tries at the present day. Since we commenced this article we 
were conversing with one of the American missionaries station- 
ed at Ceylon.* In the course of the conversation he incidentally 
remarked that the missionaries were obliged to retain the exer- 
cise of discipline in their own hands; and that, although the 
mission had been established more than fifteen years, yet the 
exercise of discipline had never been intrusted to the native 
converts. He further observed, that the missionaries had been 
endeavoring to find persons to whom they could intrust the dis- 
cipline of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not found 
one. The native converts were still ignorant of the laws of 
Christianity ; they had so little influence in the church ; they 
were so partial to each other, even when in fault ; that thus far, 

* Rev. Mr.. Winelow. 

13* 



150 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

discipline, though somewhat frequent acts of discipline were 
necessary, was retained in the hands of the missionaries. Sub- 
stantially the same thing must have occurred in the early 
churches in Asia Minor, in Syria and Greece. Will Dr. Onder- 
donk infer, that because Mr. Winslow, Mr. Poor, and Dr. Scud- 
der, in Ceylon, have found it necessary to retain the power of 
administering discipline, that therefore they are diocesan bish- 
ops, and that they do not contemplate that the churches in Cey- 
lon shall be other than prelatical ? If not, his argument in the 
case of the church in Corinth can be allowed no weight. 

We have now done with this instance of discipline. We 
have shown that all the circumstances of the case can be 
accounted for, without any such conclusion as that to which the 
author of the Tract is desirous to conduct it. We turn, there- 
fore, to his other case of discipline in the church at Ephesus. 

The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20— " Of whom is Hymeneus 
and Alexander ; whom / have delivered unto Satan, that they 
may learn not to blaspheme." His argument is, that " it is the 
Apostle who inflicts the discipline ; the elders do not appear in 
the matter. And discipline is a ministerial function, and excom- 
munication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) In reply to 
this case, we make the following observations. 

(1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy, — Timothy, on the 
supposition of Episcopalians, an apostle coordinate with Paul 
himself; Timothy, prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an 
apostle and diocesan bishop, and if the exercise of discipline 
pertained to an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the matter 
into his own hands? Why not refer it to Timothy, and repose 
sufficient confidence in him to believe that he was competent to 
fulfil this part of his Episcopal office ? Would it now be regard- 
ed as courteous, for the bishop of Ohio to interpose and inflict 
an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or Alexander of the 
diocese of Pennsylvania? And would there be as cordial sub- 
mission of the bishop of Pennsylvania, as there was of the bish- 
op of Ephesus? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the case of 
discipline occurred at the time which Dr. O. supposes, this case 
appears to our humble apprehension, very much as if Paul 
regarded Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate. 

(2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case of discipline 
by Paul proves that the presbyters at Ephesus had no right to 
administer discipline j for the same reason, it proves that Timo- 
thy had not that right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, 
Timothy was there as well as the presbyters. The assumption 
of the authority by Paul proves as much that it did not belong 
to Timothy, as that it did not belong to the presbyters. 

(3.) This was a case such as occurred at Corinth. It was 
not an ordinary act of discipline ; it was one which supposed 
the infliction of the judgment of God by a miraculous agency. 
"Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not 
to blaspheme." Compare this account with the record of the 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 151 

case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) and it is evident that this was 
not an ordinary act of discipline, but was such as implied the 
direct infliction of the judgment of the Almighty. That such 
inflictions were intrusted to the hands of the Apostles we admit; 
and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves that the latter 
was neither an apostle nor a prelate. 

(4.) Dr. Onderdonk supposes that this occurred at Ephesus, 
and while Timothy was there. But what evidence is there of 
this ? It is neither affirmed that the transaction was at Ephe- 
sus, nor that Timothy was there. His argument proceeds on 
the assumption, that Timothy was bishop there when this epis- 
tle was written, and that the case of discipline occurred there. 
And the proof of this, would probably be the subscription at the 
end of the second epistle, and the " tradition of the elders." 
But that subscription has no authority ; and it is not to be 
assumed^ but proved, that Timothy was there in the capacity of 
a prelate, or there at all when this epistle was written to him. 
The demonstration that a bishop only exercised discipline, it 
must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all. 

(5.) But if this case did. occur at Ephesus, what evidence is 
there, that it occurred at the time that Bishop Onderdonk sup- 
poses ? The account in the epistle to Timothy by no means 
fixes the time of the transaction. " Whom I have delivered 
(vapiSwica) unto Satan," &c. It was already done ; and the pre- 
sumption is, that it was done when Paul was himself present 
with them. It is morally certain that it was na£ an act of disci- 
pline that was then to be done. 

Our readers have now the whole case before them. Episco- 
pacy affirms, that prelates only have the power of administering 
discipline. It affirms that the churches are prohibited from 
exercising it on their own members; that those appointed to 
preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pas- 
tors of the flock, and who may therefore be supposed to under- 
stand the cases of discipline, and best qualified to administer it, 
have no right to exercise this act of government over their own 
members ; but that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a 
stranger, and a foreigner, a prelatical bishop, whom the church- 
es seldom see, and who must be in a great degree unacquainted 
with their peculiar wants and character. All power of disci- 
pline in an entire diocese of some hundreds of churches, is to be 
taken away from the members themselves, and from the pastors, 
and lodged in strange hands, and committed to a solitary, inde- 
pendent man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, can 
have little acquaintance with the case, and possess few of the 
qualifications requisite for the intelligent performance of this 
duty. And does the reader ask, What is the authority for this 
assumption of power? Why are the churches and their pastors 
disrobed of this office, and reduced to the condition of humble 
dependents at the feet of the prelate ? Let him, in astonish- 
ment, learn. It is not because there is any command to this 



152 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

effect in the New Testament; it is not because there is any 
declaration, implying that it would be so; it is not by any 
affirmation that it ever was so. This is the reason, and this h 
all :— r-The Apostle Paul in two cases, and in both instances ovei 
the heads of presbyters, (and over the head of Bishop Timothy, 
too,) delivered men " to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 
that they might learn not to blaspheme;" and, therefore, 
Bishop Onderdonk, and Bishop Griswold, and Bishop Doane, 
only have power to administer discipline in all the churches in 
Pennsylvania, and in the Eastern Diocese, and in New-Jersey ; 
and, therefore, all the acts of discipline exercised by Presbyte- 
rians, Methodists, Baptists, &c, in Pennsylvania and New- 
Jersey, and by the Congregationalists of New-England, are null 
and void. The disposal of such antecedents and consequents, 
may be safely left to all who hold, that " no argument is worth 
taking into the account, that has not a clear and palpable bear- 
ing on the naked topic,— the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." 
(Tract, p. 3.) 

But we have not done with this subject. We are now prepared 
to show, not only that there is no evidence that the apostles 
exclusively exercised discipline, but that there is positive proof 
that all the acts of discipline were in fact exercised by the pres- 
byters of the churches. To put this matter to rest, we adduce 
the following passages of Scripture : 

Acts xx. 17, 28 — " From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and 
called for the presbyters of the church, and said unto them : 
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, (ImvKditovs) to feed, (iroiiLaivuv 
like good shepherds, to provide for, watch over, and govern,) 
the church of Gon." It would be easy to show, that the word 
translated feed includes the whole duty which, a shepherd exer- 
cises over his flock, including all that is needful in the super- 
vision, government, and defence of those under his care. Proof 
of this may be found in the following passages of the New 
Testament, where the word occurs in the sense of ruling, or 
governing, including of course the exercise of discipline ; for 
how can there be government, unless there is authority for 
punishing offenders? Matt. ii. 6; John xxi. 16; 1 Pet. v. 2: 
Rev. ii. 27. * And he shall ride them (tvoiuclvZi airovs) with a rod 
of iron;" an expression which will be allowed to imply the 
exercise of discipline. Rev. xii. 5; xix. 15, Comp. Ps. ii. 9; 
xxiii. 1 ; xxvii. 12 ; xlvii. 13, And the Iliad of Homer may be 
consulted, passim, for this use of the word. See particularly, 
I. 263; 11.85. 

1 Pet. v. 2, 3 — "The presbyters who are among you I 
exhort, who am also a presbyter. Feed (vQifidvart) the flock of 
God which is among you, taking the oversight (sv^mitovvrts dis- 
charging the duty of bishops,) thereof, not by constraint, but will- 
ingly," &c. Here the very work which is claimed for prelates, 
is enjoined on presbyters; the very name which prelates assume, 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 153 

is given to presbyters; and Peter ranks himself as on a level 
with them in the office of exercising discipline, or in the govern- 
ment of the church. It is perfectly obvious, that the presbyters 
at Ephesus, and the presbyters whom Peter addressed, were 
intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent. It is 
obvious, that they were required to engage in all the work requi- 
site in instructing, directing, and governing ihe flock. And it 
is as obvious, that they were intrusted with a power and an 
authority in this business, with which presbyters are not intrust- 
ed by the canons of the Episcopal Church. We respectfully 
ask, Whether the bishop of Pennsylvania, or New-Jersey, would 
now take 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, for a text, and address the " priests," or 
" second order of clergy," in these words, without considerable 
qualification — " The presbyters who ^tre among you I exhort, 
who am also a presbyter. Feed (iroi//dvar«) the flock of God, 
xmoKoirSwns discharging the duty of bishops over it, not by con- 
straint, neither as being lords over God's heritage. 

Heb. xiii.7 — " Remember them which have the rule over you: 
rwv byovnivwv tyiwv, your rulers." Verse 17—-" Obey them that 
have the rule over you." (UeidecOe ro7$ fyov pivots vv&v.) That bish- 
ops are here referred to, no one will pretend. Yet the office of 
ruling certainly implies that kind of government which is con- 
cerned in the administration of discipline. 

1 Thess. v. 12 — "We beseech you, brethren, to know them 
which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord," (*ai 
-xpotaTanivovs bpiov h> Kvptu>.) 1 Tim. v. 17 — " Let the presbyters that 
rule well {*pozaTS>Tz$) be counted worthy of double honor." 
There can be no question that these passages are applied to 
presbyters. We come, then, to the conclusion, that the terms 
which properly denote government and discipline, and on 
which y alone any claim for the exercise of authority can be 
founded, — the terms expressive of governing, of feeding, of 
ruling, of taking the oversight, are all applied to presbyters ; that 
the churches are required to submit to them in the exercise of 
that office; and that the very term denoting Episcopal juris- 
diction, is applied to them also. We ask for a solitary passage 
which directs apostles, or prelates, to administer discipline; and 
we leave the case of discipline, therefore, to the common sense 
of those who read the New Testament, and who believe that 
presbyters had any duties to perform. 

We have now examined the essential point in Episcopacy ; 
for, if the claims which are arrogated for bishops are unfounded, 
the system, as a system, is destroyed. We have examined the 
solitary passage urged directly in its favor, " the apostles and 
elders," "the apostles, and elders, and brethren ;" and the claims 
set up in favor of their exclusive right to administer discipline ; 
and, if we mistake not, we have shown, that hitherto so stupend- 
ous claims have never been reared on so narrow a basis. 

The next point which it is indispensable for Episcopalians to 
make out from the Bible, is, that it was intended, that the supe- 



154 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

riority in ministerial rank and power, should be a permanent 
arrangement. This, it will be perceived, is a distinct and inde- 
pendent inquiry. It by no means follows of necessity, even if 
all that the Episcopalians claim for the apostles were conceded ; 
for it might be true that the apostles had this superiority, and yet 
that it was designed merely as a temporary arrangement. As the 
" Answer" has added nothing material to the argument of the 
Tract, on this subject, we shall not long be detained on this 
point. The sole argument in the " Tract" is drawn from the 
claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; 
and that the "angels" of the seven churches were prelatical 
bishops, (pp. 23-29.) In our review, we examined these seve- 
ral claims at length. (Review, pp. 17-31.) As the writer of 
the Answer has not thought proper to notice our argument 
here, we are left to the presumption, that an obvious or satisfac- 
tory reply was not at hand. The train of our reasoning, then, 
we shall take the liberty of regarding as unbroken and untouch- 
ed. The only appearance of argument on this subject, in the 
Answer, is found on p. 14, and it is this : that its author sup- 
poses our argument to have been, that Timothy and Titus had 
a temporary and extraordinary office, because they were " mi- 
gratory ;" and, as many of the presbyters, — Apollos, for exam- 
ple,— were migratory, hence it would follow, that the office of 
presbyter, also, was temporary. Now, in reply to this, we 
observe, that although we did affirm the appointment of Timo- 
thy and Titus to have been " temporary," yet we were not so 
weak as to suppose that it was because they were migratory. 
That this fact indicated that they had not a permanent pre- 
latical office, we assuredly did, and still do, believe. But we 
showed,— in a manner which we marvel the author of the An- 
swer did not notice, — that Timothy was sent to Ephesus for a 
special purpose, and that he was to execute that office only until 
Paul returned. (Review, pp. 22, 24. 1 Tim. i. 3; iv. 13; 1 Tim. 
iii. 14, 15.) The same thing we showed, from the New Testa- 
ment, to be the case with regard to Titus. (Review, p. 26. See 
Titus, i. 6-9 ; iii. 10, 12.) We never so far forgot ourselves, as 
to suppose that because Timothy and Titus were " migratory," 
that, therefore, they were not bishops. We put the matter on 
wholly different ground ; and in the course of our argument, we 
quoted no less than forty-six passages of the New Testament, 
containing, we believe, all that can be supposed to bear on the 
point. We cannot withhold the expressions of our "amaze- 
ment," that an author, whose express object was to " test Epis- 
copacy by Scripture," should have left unnoticed this argument. 
Never was there invented a shorter and more convenient mode 
of avoiding such an argument, than by saying of something which 
we never intended to urge, that the whole of it was founded on 
the fact of their being " migratory." We would now remind 
the author that our argument was not of such a character; but it 
was, (1.) That Timothy is not even called an apostle ; (2.) That 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTUR1. 155 

lie is expressly distinguished from the apostles; (3.) That 
there is no evidence that he was bishop of Ephesws; (4.) That 
the Scripture affirms he was sent to Ephesus for a special 
and temporary purpose ; (Review, p. 22 ;) and, (5.) That the 
epistles to Timothy contain full proof of the falsehood of any 
such supposition as that he was a prelatical bishop; because, 
(a) there are but two orders of officers in the church, spoken of 
in those epistles ; (b) they contain no description of his own 
office as aprelate ; (c) they contain full and explicit directions 
on a great' variety of other topics, of far less importance than 
the office which, according to Episcopacy, was to constitute the 
very peculiarity of the church ; and not a word respecting his 
brother bishops, then existing, or any intimation that such an 
order of men ever would exist. 

In regard to Titus, we proved, (1.) That he was left in Crete, 
for the special purpose of completing a work which Paul had 
begun; (2.) That Paul gave him express directions, when he 
had done that, to come to him ; and, (3.) That he obeyed the 
command, left Crete, and became the travelling companion of 
Paul ; and that there is not the slightest reason to suppose, that 
he ever returned to Crete. 

In regard to the " angels 7 ' of the seven churches, we showed, 
that the whole of Dr. Onderdonk's argument was a mere 
assumption, that there was an inferior body of the " clergy at 
large ;" that there were in each of those cities more churches than 
one, — a fact which should be proved, not assumed, — also, that 
the style of the address to the " angel," was that of the " angel 
of the church," evidently referring to an individual congrega- 
tion, and not to such a group of churches as constitute a modern 
diocese ; and that the application of the term " angel," to the 
pastor of a single church, was much more obvious, and much 
the more probable supposition, than to "the formal, unfrequent, 
and in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a 
diocesan bishop." (Review, pp. 27-30.) 

To this argument there is no reply, except by an assumption 
that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus; that the same thing must 
be presumed to exist in the year 96 ; and that the " elders" at 
Ephesus being there also, and being ministers, any direction to 
the " angel," must suppose that he was superior to the presby- 
ters. (Answer, p. 17.) Now the whole of this argument pro- 
ceeds on the supposition that the elders at Ephesus were 
ordained ministers of the Gospel, a distinct rank of the clergy, 
and sustaining the same office as the "second order" in the 
Episcopal Church. But this is assuming the very point in 
debate. In our review, we showed, (p. 23,) that all the facts in 
the case of the elders at Ephesus, (Acts xx. 17, &c.,) are met 
by the supposition that they were ruling elders, or persons 
appointed to govern, guide, and secure, the spiritual welfare of 
the church. Our argument is, (1.) That Dr. O. admits, that the 
word rendered "feed," (irotpaivtiv) may mean to rule: (Tract, 



156 REVIEW— ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

pp. 24, 37.) (2.) That the idea of ruling, is the one which is 
there specifically dwelt on. That he directs them to " feed," or 
exercise the office of a shepherd over them, that is, to guard, 
defend, provide for them, as a shepherd does, in the care of his 
flock. He directs them to watch against the grievous wolves 
which should come in, and against those who should rise up 
from among themselves, to secure parties, &c. (3.) There is 
no counsel given them about the proper mode of administering 
the sacraments, the peculiar duty of the "second order" of 
clergy. (4.) There is no expression of lamentation, that they 
had not a prelatical bishop ; or any intimation that they would 
soon be furnished with one. (5.) It is evidently implied, that 
the number of these elders was considerable. They are address- 
ed as such ; and yet they are addressed as in charge of one 
" flock," over which they had been placed. Now it is incredi- 
ble, that any considerable body of the " second order of clergy" 
should have been ordained in an infant church like Ephesus. 
And it is equally incredible, that rfPaul had so ordained them, 
he should have set them over one flock, in a single city, — colle- 
giate " rectors" in a single church in Ephesus, — under a " dio- 
cesan" also, of the single " flock," or church ; a diocesan not 
then present, and concerning whom not the slightest hint was 
dropped by Paul, either of lamentation or promise. So that, on 
the whole, one knows not at which to be most surprised, — the 
number of assumptions indispensable to the purpose of " en- 
throning" the bishop Timothy at Ephesus, or the singular 
coolness with which Episcopalians urge all these assumptions, 
as if they were grave matters of historical record. 

In reference to the term " angel," as used in the Apocalypse, 
we have only to remark further, that the interpretation which 
makes it refer to a prelatical bishop, is so unnatural and forced, 
that Episcopalians are, many of them, themselves compelled to 
abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet, than whom an abler man, and 
one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, is not to be 
found among the advocates of prelacy, says of these angels — "If 
many things in the epistles be denoted to the angels, but yet so 
as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel 
must be taken as a representative of the whole body ; and then, 
why may not the word angel be taken by way of representa- 
tion of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is 
far more probable, of the consessors, or order of presbyters in 
that church ? We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments 
those are, which are brought for any kind of government, from 
metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously 
used." Irenicum. 

In regard to this second point, which it is incumbent on Epis- 
copalians to make out, we are now prepared to estimate the 
force of these arguments. The case stands thus. (1.) There is 
no command in the New Testament, to the Apostles, to transmit 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office. * If there had been, the 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 157 

industry of Dr. Onderdonk would have called it to our attention. 
If the peculiarity of the office was to be transmitted, it was 
required that such a command should be given. (2.) There is 
no affirmation that it would be thus transmitted. If there had 
been, Dr. O.'s tract would not have been so barren on this 
point. And we ask him, whether it is credible, that the Apostles 
were bishops of a superior order, and that it was designed, that 
all the Church should be subject to an order of men, "superior 
in ministerial rank and power." deriving their authority from 
the Apostles; and yet, not the slightest command thus to trans- 
mit it, and not the slightest hint that it would be done ? We 
say again, Credat Judceus Apella ! (3.) It was impossible that 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be transmitted. 
We have shown, not by assumptions, but by a large array of 
passages of Scripture, what that peculiarity was, — to bear wit- 
ness to the great events which went to prove that Jesus was 
the Messiah : we have been met in this proof, by the calm and 
dignified observation, that this was a "showy" argument; and 
we now affirm, that the peculiarity of that office, as specified by 
Jesus Christ, by the chosen Apostles, by Paul, and by the 
whole college, could not be transmitted ; that no bishop is, 
or can be, a witness, in the sense and for the purpose for 
which they were originally designated. (4.) We have examined 
the case of Timothy, of Titus, and of the angels of the churches, 
— the slender basis on which the fabric of Episcopal pretension 
has been reared. We now affirm, (5.) That, should we admit 
all that Episcopalians claim on each of these points, there is 
not the slightest proof, as a matter of historical record, that the 
Episcopal office has been transmitted from prelate to prelate ; 
but that the pretended line has been often broken, and that no 
jury would give a verdict to the amount of five dollars, on proof 
so slender as can be adduced for the uninterrupted succession 
of prelates. As satisfactory evidence on this point, we repeat 
the following passage, contained in the September number of 
this journal: 

" We are informed by many ancient historians, and very 
expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesiastical History, ( That 
at the request of Oswald, King of Northumberland, certain pres- 
byters came (in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- 
land, and ordained bishops; that the abbot, and other presbyters 
of the island of Hy, sent Aydan for this express purpose, 
declaring him to be worthy of the office of bishop, and that he 
ought to be sent to instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned.' 
He informs us, that c those presbyters ordained him and sent 
him to England on this errand; and that Finan, sent from 
the same monastery in the same island, succeeded him in the 
Episcopal office, after having been ordained by the Scottish 
presbyters.' 

" Upon this testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, l You will 
find that the English had a succession of bishops by the /Scottish 
14 



158 REVIEW— ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

presbyter's ordination; and there is no mention in Bede of any 
dislike or scruple of the lawfulness of this course. 5 The learned 
Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones to substantiate the 
fact that, 'the ordination of English bishops cannot be traced 
up to the Church of Rome as its original ; that in the year 668, 
the successors of Austin, the monk, (who came over A. D. 596,) 
being almost extinct, by far the greater part of the bishops were 
of Scottish ordination, by Aydan and Finan, who came out of 
the Culdee monastery of Columbanus, and were no more than 
presbyters.' 

" And is it verily so, that the Episcopal blood was thus early 
and extensively contaminated in England ? Is it verily so, that 
when the effects of pious Austin's labors had become almost 
imperceptible, the sinking Church was revived again by sending 
to Scotland for presbyters to come and ordain a multitude of 
bishops 1 Then it is verily a fact, that Presbyterian ordination 
is one of the sturdiest pillars that support the vast fabric of the 
Church of England. No matter if only ten bishops were thus 
ordained, the contamination (if it be one) having been imparted 
more than eleven hundred years ago, has had a long time to 
diffuse itself, and doubtless has diffused itself so extensively 
from bishop to bishop, that not a single prelate in Great Britain 
can prove that he has escaped the infection. For what one of 
them can tell if he was not consecrated by bishops who were 
themselves .consecrated by bishops, and they by other bishops, 
to whom all the ordaining power they ever had was transmitted 
from the presbyters of Scotland ? But this is not the whole of 
the evil. As no one bishop can trace his Episcopal pedigree 
farther back perhaps than two or three centuries, so he cannot 
certainly know that any presbyter on whose head he has 
imposed hands, has received from him any thing more than 
Presbyterian ordination. Nor is this all the evil. The Pro- 
testant Episcopal bishops and presbyters in America are in the 
same plight ; for I am told that all their authority came from 
England. But as the English bishops who gave it to them 
could not then, and cannot now, certainly tell whence it came, 
so who knows but all the Episcopal clergy in the United States 
of America are originally indebted to the hands of Elder 
Aydan and Elder Finan for all their ministerial powers ? I 
tremble for all Protestant Episcopal churches on both conti- 
nents, if Presbyterian ordination be not valid and scriptural." 
(pp. 486, 487.) 

One point more in the argument for Episcopacy remains. It 
is, that none but prelates ordained. It is incumbent on Episco- 
palians to prove this, as essential to their argument. For if 
presbyters or elders exercised the office of ordaining, then the 
main point claimed for the superiority of bishops is unfounded. 
We aim, therefore, to show that there is positive proof that 
presbyters did ordain. We have shown, in the course of our 
argument, that they exercised the office of discipline, one of the 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 259 



things claimed peculiarly for bishops ; we now proceed to show 
that the office of ordaining was one which was intrusted to 
them, and which they exercised. If this point be made out, it 
follows still further that the peculiarity of the office of the apos- 
tles was not that they ordained, and that the clergy of the New 
Testament are not divided into " three orders," but are equal in 
ministerial rank and power. The argument is indeed complete 
without this : for, unless Episcopalians can show, by positive 
proof, the superiority of their bishops to the right of ordination 
and discipline, the parity of the clergy follows as a matter of 
course. 

The writer of these articles is a Presbyterian. But the argu- 
ment does not require that he should go largely into the proof 
of his own views on church polity. The object is to disprove 
Episcopacy. If this is disproved, it follows that the clergy are 
on an equality. If it is shown that the doctrine of the New 
Testament is, that presbyters were to ordain, it is a sufficient 
disposal of the " feeble claims of lay-ordination,' 1 and of all 
other claims. It will follow,, that a valid ordination is that 
which is performed in accordance with the direction that pres- 
byters should ordain. What particular churches besides the 
Presbyterian, accord in their practice with the direction, it is not 
our business to inquire. It is sufficient for our purpose that the 
Presbyterian and Congregational churches accord with that 
requirement, and follow the direction of the New Testament in 
the ordination of their ministry by presbyters, and in their min- 
isterial equality. This is all the reply that is necessary to the 
train of reflections in the u Answer." (pp. 5, 6.) We have 
seen, also, that Episcopal ordination is valid, not because it is 
performed by a prelate, but because it is, as we remarked, 
(Review, pp. 32, 33,) in fact a mere Presbyterian performance. 

In proof of the point now before us, therefore, we adduce 

1 Tim. iv. 14 — " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which 
was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery." Of this passage, which, to the common sense 
of mankind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is evi- 
dently material for Episcopalians to dispose ; or their claims to 
exclusive rights and privileges are for ever destroyed. We 
shall, therefore, examine the passage, and then notice the objec- 
tions to its obvious and common sense interpretation alleged by 
Dr. Onderdonk. 

We observe then, (1.) That the translation of the passage is 
fairly made. Much learned criticism l^as been exhausted, to 
very little purpose, by Episcopalians, to show, that a difference 
existed between " with," (n*™) m this place,, and " by," (But) in 

2 Tim. i. 6. It has been said, "that such a distinction may 
justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue of the ordaining 
act flowed from Paul, while the presbytery, or the rest of that 
body if he were included in it, expressed only consent" (Tract,, 
p. 22.) But it has never been shown, nor can it be,, that ib& 



160 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

preposition " with" does not fairly express the force of the ori- 
ginal. The same observation may be applied to the word, " pres- 
bytery," (irpeerfivTcphv.) It denotes properly a body, or assembly 
of elders, or presbyters. In Luke xxii, 66, it is applied to the 
body of elders which composed the Sanhedrim, or great council 
of the Jews, and is translated "the elders of the people:" ™ irpev- 
fivriptov ros Xaov. See also Acts xxii. 5 — " the estate of the elders." 
The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament except 
in the passage under consideration. Dr. Onderdonk has endea- 
vored to show that it means " the office to which Timothy was 
ordained, not the persons who ordained him; so that the pas- 
sage would read, 4 with the laying on of hands to confer the 
presbyterate, 1 or presbytership, or the clerical office ;" and 
appeals to the authority of Grotius and Calvin in the case. (Tract, 
pp. 19, 20.) In regard to this interpretation we observe, (1.) 
That if this be correct, then it follows, that Timothy was not an 
apostle, but an elder. — he was ordained to the office of the pres- 
byterate, or the eldership. Timothy, then, is to be laid out of 
the college of the apostles, and reduced to the humble office of a 
presbyter. When prelacy is to be established by showing that 
the office of apostles was transmitted, Timothy is an apostle; 
when it is necessary to mvikemnother use of this same man, it 
appears that he was ordained to the presbyter ate, and Timothy 
becomes a humble presbyter. But, (2.) If the word " presby- 
tery" (irpeaPvripiov) here means the presbytei'ate, and not the per- 
sons, then it doubtless means the same in the two other places 
where it occurs. In Luke xxii. 66, we shall receive the informa- 
tion, that " the presbyterate," " the presbytership," or " the cleri- 
cal office" of the people, that is, the body by which the people 
conferred "the presbyterate," came together with the scribes, 
&c. In Acts xxii. 5, we shall be informed that " the presbyterate," 
or "the clerical office," would bear witness with the high-priest 
to the life of Paul. Such absurdities show the propriety of 
adhering, in interpretation, to the obvious and usual meaning of 
the words. (3.) The word is fixed in its meaning in the usage 
of the Church. Suicer (Thesaurus,) says, it denotes "an assem- 
bly, congregation, and college of presbyters in the Christian 
Church." In all the instances which he quotes from Theodoret, 
(on 1 Tim. iv. 14,) from Chrysostom, (Homil. xiii. on this epis- 
tle,) from Theophylact, (in loco,) and from Ignatius, (Epis. to 
Antioch, and to the Trallians,) there is not the slightest evi- 
dence, that it is ever used to denote the office, instead of the 
persons, of the presbytery. (4.) As the opinion of Grotius is 
referred to by Dr. 0., we beg leave to quote here a passage from 
his commentary on this place. "The custom was, that the 
presbyters who were present placed their hands on the head of 
the candidate, at the same time with the presiding officer of their 
body," cum ccetits sui principe. " Where the apostles, or their 
assistants, were not present, ordination took place by the presid- 
ing officer (Prcesidem) of their body, with the concurrence &i 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 16$ 

the presbytery." We were particularly surprised that the 
authority of Calvin should have been adduced, as sanctioning 
that interpretation, which refers the word presbytery to office, 
and not to 'persons. His words are, "They who interpret pres- 
bytery here as a collective noun, denoting the college of presby- 
ters, are, in my judgment, right." Oar first argument, then, is, 
that the word " presbytery," denoting the persons who composed 
the body, or college of elder s r is the proper, obvious, and esta- 
blished sense of the passage. 

(2.) It is evident from this passage, that whoever or whatever 
else might have been engaged in this transaction, a material part 
of it belonged to the presbytery or eldership concerned. " Ne- 
glect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by pro- 
phecy ; WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OP THE PRESBYTERY." 

Here it is evident that the presbytery bore a material part in the 
transaction. Paul says that the gift that was in Timothy was 
given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery. That is, that prophecy, or same prophecies relating 
to Timothy, (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, " according to the prophecies 
which went before in thee,") had designated him as a proper 
person for the ministry, or that he would be employed in the 
ministry ; but the prophecy did not invest him with the office, 
— did not confer the gift. That was done, — that formal appoint- 
ment fulfilling the prophecy, — by the imposition of the hands of 
the presbytery. It was necessary that that act of the presbytery 
should thus concur with the prophecy, or Timothy had remained 
a layman. The presbyters laid their hands on him; and he 
thus received his office. As the prophecy made no part of his 
ordination, it follows that he was ordained by the presbytery. 

(3.) The statement here is just one which would be given 
now in a Presbyterian ordination; it is not one which would 
be made in an Episcopal ordination. A Presbyterian would 
choose these very words, to give an account of an ordination in 
his church ; an Episcopalian would not.. The former speaks of 
ordination by a presbytery ; the latter of ordination by a bishop. 
The former can use the account of the Apostle Paul here as 
applicable to ordination, without explanations, comments, new 
versions, and criticisms ; the latter cannot. The passage speaks 
to the common understanding of men in favor of Presbyterian 
ordination, — of the action of a presbytery in the case: it never 
speaks the language of Episcopacy, even after all the torture to 
which it may be subjected by Episcopal criticism. The passage 
is one, too, which is not like the "apostles and elders," "the 
apostles, and elders, and brethren," — the only direct passage on 
which Episcopacy relies,— a passage which has no perceptible 
connexion with the case ; but it is one that speaks on the very 
subject; which relates to the exact transaction; and which 
makes a positive affirmation of the very thing in debate. 

(4.) The supposition that this was not a presbyterial transac- 
tion, renders the passage unmeaning.. Here was present a body 
14* 



162 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

of men called a presbytery. We ask the Episcopalian why they 
were present? The answer is, not for the purpose of ordina- 
tion, but for "concurrence." Paul, the bishop, is the sole 
ordainer. We see Timothy bowing before the presbytery. We 
see them solemnly impose their hands on him. We ask, Why is 
this? c Not for the purpose of ordination,' the Episcopalian 
replies, 'but for " concurrence." Paul is the ordainer.' But, we 
ask, Had they no share in the ordination ? ' None at all.' Had 
they no participation in conferring the gift designated by pro- 
phecy? 'None at all.' Why, then, present? Why did they 
impose hands? For " concurrence," for form, for nothing ! It 
was an empty pageantry, in which they were mistaken when 
supposing that their act had something to do in conferring the 
gift; for their presence really meant nothing, and the whole 
transaction could as well have been performed without as with 
them. 

(5.) If this ordination was the joint act of the presbytery, we 
have here a complete scriptural account of a Presbyterian ordi- 
nation. It becomes, then, a very material question, how the 
Episcopalians dispose of this passage of Scripture. Their diifr- 
culties and embarrassments on this subject, will still further 
confirm the obvious interpretation which Presbyterians suggest 
and hold. These difficulties and embarrassments are thus pre- 
sented by Dr. Onderdonk : — 

He first doubts whether this transaction was an ordination. 
(Tract, pp. 18, 19.) To this we answer, (1.) That if it were not, 
then there is no account that Timothy was ever ordained ; (2.) 
That there is no specific work mentioned in the history of the 
apostles, to which Timothy was designated, unless it was ordi- 
nation ; (3.) That it is the obvious and fair meaning of the pas- 
sage ; (4.) That if this does not refer to ordination, it would be 
easy to apply the same denial to all the passages which speak of 
the " imposition of hands," and to show that there was no such 
thing as ordination to the ministry in any case ,* (5.) That it 
accords with the common usage of the terms, ' imposition of 
hands,' imBtaris r&v x^fiv, in the New Testament. The phrase 
occurs but four times : — Acts viii. 18 ; 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6; 
Heb. vi. 2. In all these places it evidently denotes conferring 
some gift, office, or favor described by the act. In 2 Tim. 
i. 6, It denotes, by the acknowledgment of all Episcopalians, 
ordination to the ministry. Why should it not here ? (6.) If, 
as Dr. Onderdonk supposes, it refers to " an inspired designation 
of one already in the ministry, to a particular field of duty," 
(Tract, p. 19,) then, (a) we ask, why we have no other mention 
of this transaction ? (6) We ask how it is to be accounted for 
that Paul, while here evidently referring Timothy to the duties 
and responsibilities of the ministerial office in general, should 
not refer to his ordination, but to a designation to a particular 
field of labor ? His argument to Timothy, on such a supposition, 
would be this — ' Your office of a minister of the Gospel, is one 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 163 

that is exceedingly important. A bishop must be blameless, 
vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to 
teach, not given to wine, &c. (chap, iii.) In order to impress 
this more deeply on you, to fix these great duties in your mind, I 
refer you, — not to the solemnity of your ordination vows, — but 
/ solemnly remind you of " an inspired separation of one 
already in the ministry -, to a particular field of duty." ' We 
need only observe here, that this is not a strain of argument that 
looks like Paul. But, 

Secondly. Dr. O. supposes that this was not a Presbyterian 
ordination. (Tract, pp. 19-21.) His first supposition is that the 
word " presbytery" does not mean the persons, but the office, 
(p. 19.) This we have already noticed. He next supposes, (pp. 
20, 21,) that if the " presbytery" here means not the office given 
to Timothy, but a body of elders, that it cannot be shown "of 
whom this ordaining presbytery was composed." (p. 21.) And 
he then proceeds to state that there are "seven modes" in 
which this "presbytery" might be composed. It might be 
made up of "ruling elders;" or, it might be composed of 
the "grade called presbyters;" or, as Peter and John called 
themselves "elders," it might be made up of "apostles;" or, 
" there may have been ruling elders and presbyters ; or, pres- 
byters and one or more apostles ; or, ruling elders and one or 
more of the apostles ; or, ruling elders, and presbyters, and 
apostles." (p. 21.) Now as Dr. O. has not informed us which of 
these modes he prefers, we are left merely to conjecture. We 
may remark on these suppositions, (1.) That they are mere sup- 
positions. There is not the shadow of proof to support them. 
The word " presbytery," " a body of elders," does not appear to 
be such a difficult word of interpretation, as to make it necessary 
to envelop it in so much mist, in order to understand it. Dr. O.'s 
argument here, is such as a man always employs when he is 
pressed by difficulties which he cannot meet, and when he 
throws himself, as it were, into a labyrinth, in the hope that 
amidst its numerous passages he may escape detection and 
evade pursuit. (2.) If this " body of elders" was made up of 
" ruling elders," or, " of the grade called presbyters," then the 
argument of Episcopacy is overthrown. Here is an instance, 
on either supposition, of Presbyterian ordination, which is fatal 
to the claims that bishops only ordain. Or, if it be supposed 
that this was not an ordination, but " an inspired separation of 
one already in the ministry, to a particular field of duty," it is 
an act equally fatal to the claim of prelates to the general 
"superintendence" of the Church ; since it is manifest, that these 
" elders" took upon themselves the functions of this office, and 
designated " the bishop of Ephesus" to his field of labor. Such 
a transaction would scarcely meet with Episcopal approbation 
in the nineteenth century. 

But in regard to the other suppositions, that a part of all the 
"presbytery" was composed of apostles, we remark, (1.) That 



164 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

it is a merely gratuitous supposition . There is not an instance 
in which the term " presbytery," or "body of elders," is applied 
in the New Testament to the collective body of the apostles.. 
(2.) On the supposition that the "presbytery" was composed 
entirely of apostles, then we ask how it happens, that, in 2 Tim. 
i. 6, Paul appropriates to himself a power which belonged to every 
one of them in as full right as to him? How came they to 
surrender their power into the hands of an individual ? Was it 
the character of Paul thus to assume authority which did not 
belong to him? We have seen already how, on the supposi- 
tion of the Episcopalian, he superseded Bishop Timothy in the 
exercise of discipline in Corinth, and in his own diocese at 
Ephesus: we have now an instance in which he claims all the 
virtue of the ordaining power, where his fellow apostles must 
have been equally concerned. 

But if a part only of this " presbytery" was composed of 
apostles, and the remainder presbyters, either ruling elders, or 
"the second grade," we would make the following inquiries : 
(1.) Was he ordained as a prelate ? So the Episcopalians with 
one voice declare, — prelate of Ephesus. Then it follows that 
Timothy, a prelate, was set apart to his work by the imposition 
of the hands of elders. What was then his prelatical char- 
acter? Does the water in the cistern rise higher than the 
fountain? If laymen were concerned, Timothy was a layman 
still. If presbyters, Timothy was a presbyter still. And thua 
all the power of prelates, from him of Rome downward, has 
come through the hands of humble presbyters, — just as we 
believe, and just as history affirms. (2.) Was he ordained as a 
presbyter ? Then his Episcopal character, so far as it depends 
on his ordination, is swept away ; and thus we have not a soli- 
tary instance of the consecration of a prelate in all the New 
Testament. 

Which of these suppositions of Dr. O., he is disposed to re- 
ceive as the true one, we are unable to say. All of them cannot 
be true ; and whichever he chooses, is, as we have seen, equally 
fatal to his argument, and involves a refutation of the claims of 
prelacy. 

The only other reply with which Dr. O. meets the argument 
for Presbyterian ordination from this passage, is, by the suppo- 
sition, that the virtue of the ordaining act was derived from the 
Apostle Paul. The passage on which he rests the argument is, 
(2 Tim. i. 6,) "that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, 
by the putting on of my hands." On this passage we observe,. 
(1.) Paul does not deny that other hands were also imposed on 
Timothy ; nor that his authority was derived also from others, 
in conjunction with himself. (2.) That by the supposition ot 
Episcopalians, as well as Presbyterians, other hands were in 
fact, imposed on him. (&) It was perfectly natural for Paul, in 
consequence of the relation which Timothy sustained to him, as 
his adopted son, (1 Tim. i, 2;) as being selected by him for the 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 165 

ministry, (Acts xvi. 3;) and as being bis companion in the 
ministry, and in travels, to remind him, near the close of his 
own life, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) that he had been solemnly set apart to 
the work by himself, — to bring his own agency into full view, — 
in order to stimulate and encourage him. That Paul had a 
part in the act of the ordination, we admit; that others also had 
a part — the "presbytery" — we have proved. (4.) The expres- 
sion which is here used, is just such as an aged Presbyterian 
minister would now use, if directing a farewell letter to a son in 
the ministry. He would remind him, as Paul does in this epis- 
tle, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) that he was about to leave the ministry, and 
the world ; and if he wished to impress his mind in a peculiarly 
tender manner, he would remind him, also, that he took part in 
his ordination; that under his own hands, he had been desig- 
nated to the work of the ministry ; and would endeavor to. deep- 
en his conviction of the importance and magnitude of the work, 
by the reflection that he had been solemnly set apart to it by a 
father. Yet who would infer from this, that the aged Presbyte- 
rian would wish to be regarded as a prelate ? 

Dr. 0. remarks on this case, (Tract, p. 22,) that, if Paul was 
engaged in the transaction, it was the work of an apos£l&, and 
was " an apostolic ordination." We admit that it was arc 
" apostolic ordination ;" but when will Episcopalians learn to 
suppose it possible, that an "apostolic ordination" was not a 
prelatical ordination? Did not Dr. O. see that this was assum- 
ing the very point in debate^ that the peculiarity of the apostolic 
office was the power of ordaining"? We reply t further, that 
whoever was engaged in it, a "presbytery" was concerned, and 
it was & Presbyterian ordination. 

W T e have now considered all the objections thai have beem 
made to the obvious interpretation of this passage; and we are- 
prepared to submit it to any candid mind, as a full and unquali- 
fied statement of an instance of Presbyterian ordination. Which- 
ever of the half-dozen suppositions, — assuming a hue, chameleon- 
like, from the nature of the argument to be refuted, — which 
Episcopalians are compelled to apply to the passage, is adopted, 
we have seen that they involve them in all the difficulties of an 
unnatural interpretation, and conduct us by a more circuitous 
route, only to the plain and common sense exposition of the 
passage, as decisive in favor of Presbyterian ordination. 

Having thus shown that there was one Presbyterian ordina- 
tion, in the case of Timothy, claimed by Episcopalians as a 
prelate, and this too, in perhaps the only instance of ordination 
to the ministry recorded in the New Testament ; we now pro- 
ceed to adduce the case of a church that was not organized on 
the principles of Episcopalians, with three orders of clergy. 
We refer to the church at Philippi. " Paul and Timothy, serv- 
ants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at 
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," <™v f noK&irois Kal Siaxdvois. 
In regard to this church we make the following observations. 



166 REV?EW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

(1.) It was organized by the Apostle Paul himself, in connexion 
with Silas, and was, therefore, on the truly " primitive and apos- 
tolic" plan. (Acts xvi.) (2.) It was in the centre of a large 
territory, the capital of Macedonia, and not likely to be placed in 
subjection to a diocesan of another region. (3.) It was sur- 
rounded by other churches; as we have express mention of the 
church at Thessalonica, and the preaching of the Gospel at 
Berea. (Acts xvii.) (4.) .There is mention made of but two 
orders of men. What the deacons were, we know from the 
appointment in Acts vi. 1-6. They were designated, not to 
preach, but to take care of the poor members of the church, and 
to distribute the alms of the saints. As we have there, in the 
original appointment of the office, the express and extended 
mention of its functions, we are to infer that the design was the 
same at Philippi. If we admit, however, the supposition of the 
Episcopalians, that the deacons were preachers, it will not at all 
affect our argument. The other class, therefore, the " bishops," 
constitute the preaching order, or the clergy, — those to whom 
were committed the preaching of the word, the administration 
of the sacraments, and of the discipline of the church. Now, 
either these bishops were prelates, or they were the pastors, the 
pi^esbyters of the church. If Episcopalians choose to say they 
were prelates, then it follows, (a) that there was a plurality of 
such prelates in the same diocese, and the same city, and the 
same church; which is contrary to the fundamental idea of 
Episcopacy. It follows also, (b) that there is entirely wanting 
in this church the 4 second order' of clergy ; that an Episcopal 
church is organized, defective in one of the essential grades,, 
with an appointment of a body of prelates, without presbyters ; 
that is, an, order of ' superior 5 men, designated tt> exercise juris- 
diction over " priests" who had no existence. If it be said that 
the '' presbyters," or " second order," might have been there, 
though Paul did not expressly name them ; then we are pre- 
sented with the remarkable fact, that he specifies the deacons,. 
an inferior order, and expresses to them his Christian saluta- 
tions; that he salutes and addresses also the saints, and yet 
entirely disregards those who had the special pastoral charge of 
the church. Paul thus becomes a model of disrespect and 
incivility. In the epistles to Timothy he gives him directions 
about every thing else, but no counsel about his brother pre- 
lates: in the epistles to the churches he salutes their prelates 
and their deacons, but becomes utterly regardless of the c second 
order of clergy,' the immediate pastors of the churches. 

But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say, that the " bishops" 
here mean not prelates bu;t presbyters, we, so far, shall agree 
with them; and then it follows, (a) that here is an undeniable 
instance of a church, or rather a group of churches, large 
enough to satisfy the desire of any diocesan bishop for extended 
jurisdiction, organized without any prelate. None is men- 
tioned; and there are but two orders of men, to whom the care 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 167 

of the "saints at Philippi" is intrusted. (6) If there was a 
prelate there, then we ask, why Paul did not refer to him with 
affectionate salutations'? Why does he refer to ' the second and 
the third orders of clergy,' without the slightest reference to the 
man who was 'superior to them in ministerial rank and power?' 
Was Paul jealous of the prelate? or have we here another 
instance of indecorum and incivility? (c) If they had had a 
prelate, and the see was now vacant, why is there no reference 
to this fact? why no condolence at their loss? why no prayer 
that God would send them a man to enter into the vacant dio- 
cese ? (d) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the pressure of 
these difficulties to be so great, that they have supposed the pre- 
late to have been absent when this epistle was addressed to the 
church at Philippi ; and that this was the reason why he was 
not remembered in the salutation. Of this solution, we observe 
only, that like some other of their arguments, it is mere assump- 
tion. And even granting this assumption, it is an inquiry of not 
very easy solution, why Paul did not make some reference to 
this fact, and ask their prayers for the absent prelate. One can 
scarcely help being forcibly reminded, by the ineffectual efforts 
of Episcopalians to find a prelate at Philippi, of a remarkable 
transaction mentioned 1 Kings xviii. 27, 28, to which we need 
only refer our readers. It is scarcely necessary to add, that if 
a single church is proved to have been organized without the 
"three orders of clergy," the parity of the ministry is made out 
by apostolic appointment, and the Episcopal argument is at 
an end. 

We may add, that our view of the organization of the church 
in Philippi, is confirmed by an examination of the organization 
of the church in its immediate neighborhood, in Thessalonica. 
In the two epistles which Paul directed to that church, there is 
not the slightest reference to any prelaticai bishop ; there is no 
mention of ' three orders of clergy ;' there is no hint that the 
church was organized on that plan! But one order of ministers 
is mentioned, evidently as entitled to the same respect, and as on 
an entire equality. They were men clearly of the same rank, and 
engaged in discharging the functions of the same office. " And 
we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among 
you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and to 
esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake." 1 Thess. 
v. 12, 13. Will our Episcopal friends be kind enough to inform 
ns, why there is no mention of the prelate, whether present 
or absent ? 

We are here prepared to estimate the force of the undeniable 
fact, that there is no distinction of grade or rank, by the names 
which are given to the ministers of the Gospel in the New 
Testament. It is admitted by Episcopalians themselves that 
the names bishop, presbyter, &c, in the Bible, do not denote 
those ranks of church officers to which they are now applied, 
but are given indiscriminately to all. On this point we have 



168 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP 

the authority of Dr. Onderdonk. "The name 'bishop,' " says 
he, " which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, 
is not appropriated to this office in Scripture. That name is 
given to the middle order, or presbyters; and all that we read 
in the new testament concerning 'bishops,' (including, of 
course, the words 'overseers,' and 'oversight,' which have the 
same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining to this mid- 
dle grade." (Tract, p. 12.) "Another irregularity of the same 
kind, occurs in regard to the word ' elder.' It is sometimes 
used for a minister or clergyman of any grade, higher, middle, 
or lower; but it more strictly signifies a presbyter." Tract, 
p. 14. 

In accordance with this fact, which is as remarkable as it is 
true, we have seen that Peter applies to himself the name pres- 
byter, and puts himself on a level with other presbyters. " The 
presbyters which are among you, I exhort, (not I command, or 
enjoin, as a prelate would do,) who am also a presbyter." 
1 Peter v. 1. And in the very next verse he exhorts them, (the 
elders or presbyters,) to " feed the flock of God, taking the over- 
sight, (iiriaKondwres exercising the office of bishop,) not by con- 
straint," &c. 

Now let these conceded facts be borne in mind. The term 
presbyter is applied to the apostles. " All that we read of in the 
New Testament concerning ' bishops,' is applied to the middle 
grade." The apostles address each other, and their brethren, by 
the same terms, — by no words or names that indicate rank, or 
grade, or authority. We maintain that this fact can be account- 
ed for, only on the supposition that they regarded themselves as 
ministers, as on a level. If they meant to teach that one class 
was superior in rank and power to others, we maintain that 
they would not have used terms always confounding such dis- 
tinctions, and always proceeding on the supposition that they 
were on an equality. It will not be pretended, that they could 
not employ terms that would have marked the various grades. 
For if the term 'bishop' can now do it, it could do it then ; if 
the term presbyter can now be used to denote 'the middle 
grade,' it could then have been so used. We maintain, too, that 
if such had been their intention, they would have thus employed 
those terms. That the sacred writers were capable of using 
language definitely, Dr. Onderdonk will not doubt. Why, then, 
if they were capable, did they choose not to do it ? Are Episco- 
pal bishops now, ever as vague and indefinite in their use of the 
terms 'bishop' and 'presbyters' as were the apostles? Why 
were the latter so undesirous of having the "pre-eminence ?" 
(3 John 9.) 

It is remarkable, that the mode of using these terms in the 
New Testament, is precisely in accordance with the usage in 
Presbyterian and Congregational churches. They speak, just 
as the sacred writers did, of their ministers, indiscriminately as 
* bishops,' as ' pastors,' as ' teachers,' as ' evangelists.' They 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 169 

regard their ministers as on an equality. Did not tne sacred 
writers do the same ? 

It is as remarkable, that the mode of using these terms in the 
Episcopal churches is not, (ex concessis,) that which occurs in 
the Bible. And it is as certain, that were they thus to use those 
terms, it would at once confound their orders and ranks, and 
reduce their ministers to equality. Do we ever see any approxi- 
mation in their addresses, and in their canons, in this respect, to 
the language and style of the New Testament? Do we ever 
hear of Bishop Tyng, or Bishop Hawks, or Bishop Schroeder, 
or Bishop Croswell? Do we ever hear of Presbyter Ives, or 
Doane, or Onderdonk? How would language like this sound in 
the mouth of a prelatical bishop? Would not all men be 
amazed, as if some new thing had happened under the sun, in 
the Episcopal Church ? And yet, we venture to presume, that 
the terms used in the New Testament to designate any office, 
may be used still. We shall still choose to call things by their 
true names, and to apply to all ranks and orders of men the 
terms which are applied to them by the Spirit of inspiration. 
And as the indiscriminate use of these terms is carefully 
avoided by the customs and canons of the Episcopal Church ; 
as there seems to have been a presentiment in the formation of 
those canons, that such indiscriminate use would reduce the 
fabric to simple ' parity' of the clergy ; and as these terms can- 
not be so used, without reducing these ' ranks and orders' to a 
scriptural equality, we come to the conclusion that the Apostles 
meant to teach, that the ministers of the New Testament are 
equal in ministerial rights and powers. 

W 7 e have now gone through this entire subject. We have 
examined, we trust, in a candid manner, — we are sure with the 
kindest feelings toward our Episcopal brethren, — every argu- 
ment which they have to adduce from the Bible, in favor of the 
claims of their bishops. We have disposed of these arguments 
step by step. We have done this, remembering that these are 
all the arguments which Episcopacy has to urge from the Bible. 
There is nothing that remains. The subject is exhausted. 
Episcopacy rests here. And it, is incumbent on Episcopacy to 
show, not to affirm, that our interpretation of those passages is 
not sustained by sound principles of exegesis. 

The burden of proof still lies on them. They assumed it, and 
on them it rests. They affirm that enormous powers are lodged 
in the hands of the prelate,— -every thing pertaining to ordina- 
tion, to discipline, to the superintendence of the Christian Church. 
They claim powers tending to degrade every presbyter in the 
world to the condition of a dependent and inferior office ; strip- 
ping him of the right of transmitting his own office, and of 
administering discipline among his own flock. They arrogate 
powers which go to strip all other presbyters, except Episcopa- 
lian, of any right to officiate in the Church of God; rendering 
their ordination invalid, their administrations void, and their 
15 



170 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

exercise of the functions of their office, a daring and impious 
invasion of the rights of the priesthood, and a violation of the 
law of Christ. The foundation for these sweeping, and certainly 
not very modest claims, we have examined with all freedom. 
The argument for prelacy may be summed up in a word. It 
consists in the text, — the solitary text, — u the apostles and 
elders," "the apostles, and elders, and brethren," joined to a 
circuitous train of reasoning remote from common apprehen- 
sion, and too abstruse for the guidance of the mass of men. 
Step by step we have followed them in their circuits; argument 
after argument we have patiently displaced ; and at the conclu- 
sion, we may ask any person of plain common sense, to place 
his finger on that portion of the Book of God which is favorable 
to prelacy. 

This argument having been met and disproved, we have 
produced an instance of express Presbyterian ordination in the 
case of Timothy. Two churches we have found that were 
organized without prelates. We are thus, by another train of 
argument, conducted to the same result, — that prelates are 
unknown in the New Testament. And to make our argument 
perfectly conclusive, we have shown that the same titles are 
applied indiscriminately to all. 

Our argument may be stated in still fewer words. The 
Episcopal claims are not made out ; and, of course, the clergy of 
the New Testament are equal. The Episcopalian has failed to 
show that there were different grades ; and it follows that there 
must be parity. We have examined the only case of ordina- 
tion specified in the New Testament, and the constitution of the 
churches, and find that it is so; and we are conducted inevita- 
bly to the conclusion that prelacy is not in the Bible. 

We now take our leave of the fioiscopal controversy. As Epis- 
copacy has nothing which it can add to the scriptural argument, 
we regard our labors in this department as at end. The whole 
scriptural argument is exhausted, and here our inquiry ends ; 
and here our interest in this topic ceases. We take leave of the 
subject with the same kind feelings for that Church, and the 
same respect for the author of the "Tract," with which we began 
the inquiry. We remember the former services which the Epis- 
copal Church rendered to the cause of truth, and of the world's 
redemption ; we remember the bright and ever-living lights of 
truth, which her clergy and her illustrious laymen have in other 
times enkindled in the darkness of this world's history, and 
which continue to pour their pure and steady lustre on the liter- 
ature, the laws, and the customs of tbe Christian world ; and we 
trust the day will never come, when our own bosoms, or the 
bosoms of Christians in any denomination, will cease to beat 
with emotions of lofty thanksgiving to the God of grace, that he 
raised up such gifted and holy men, to meet the corruptions of 
the Papacy, and to breast the wickedness of the world. 

Jn our view of ecclesiastical polity, we can have no unkind 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 171 

feelings toward any branch of the true Church of God. We 
strive to cherish feelings of affectionate regard for them all, and 
to render praise to the common Father of Christians, for any 
efforts which are made to advance the intelligence, the purity, 
and the salvation of mankind. In our views of the nature of 
mind, and of freedom, we can have no unkind feelings toward 
any denomination of true Christians. " There are diversities of 
operations, but the same Spirit," We have no expectation that 
all men, in this world, will think alike. And we regard it as a 
wise arrangement, that the Church of God is thus organized 
into different sections and departments, under the banner of the 
common Captain of their salvation. It promotes inquiry. It 
prevents complacency in mere forms and ceremonies. It pro- 
duces healthy and vigorous emulation. It affords opportunities 
for all classes of minds to arrange themselves according to their 
preferences and their habits of thought. And it is not unfavora- 
ble to that kindness of feeling which the Christian can cherish, 
and should cherish, when he utters in the sanctuary the article 01 
his faith, "I believe in the holy catholic Church, the commu- 
nion of saints." The attachment of a soldier to a particular 
company or squadron, need not diminish his respect for the 
armies of his country, or extinguish his love of her liberty. 
Being joined to a company of infantry, need not make me feel 
that the cavalry are useless, or involve me in a controversy with 
the artillery. 

We ask only, that Episcopacy should not assume arrogant 
claims; that she should be willing to take her place among 
other denominations of Christians, entitled to like respect as 
others, to all the tender and sympathetic affections of the Chris- 
tian brotherhood ; and willing that others should walk in the 
liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free. We shall 
have no contest with our Episcopal brethren for loving the 
church of their choice, and the church in which they seek to 
prepare themselves for heaven. We shall not utter the lan- 
guage of unkindness for their reverencing the ministerial office, 
in which the spirits of Cranmer and Leighton were prepared for 
their eternal rest. Content that other denominations should 
enjoy like freedom, while they do not arrogate to themselves 
unholy claims, and attempt to "lord it over" other parts "of 
God's heritage," we shall pray for their success, and rejoice in 
their advancement. But the moment they cross this line ; the 
moment they make any advances which resemble those of the 
Papacy; the moment they set up the claim of being the only 
" primitive and apostolical Church ;" and the moment they speak 
of the "invalid ministry" and the "invalid ordinances" of the 
churches, and regard them as "left to the uncovenanted mer- 
cies of God," that moment the language of argument and of 
Christian rebuke may properly be heard from every other deno- 
mination. There are minds that can investigate the Bible, as 
well as the advocates for Episcopacy ; there are pens that can 



172 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF 

compete with any found in the Episcopal Church ; and there 
are men who will not be slow to rebuke the first appearance of 
arrogance and of lordly assumption, and who will remind them, 
that the time has gone by when an appeal to the infallible 
Church will answer in this controversy. Arrogant assumptions, 
they will be at once reminded, do not suit the present state of 
intelligence in this land, nor the genius of our institutions. 
While the Episcopal Church shall seek, by kind and gentle 
means, to widen its influence, like the flowing of a river, or like 
the dews of heaven, we shall hail its advances: when she 
departs from this course, and seeks to utter the language of 
authority and denunciation, — to prostrate other churches, as 
with the sweepings of the mountain-torrent, — she will be check' 
ed by all the intelligence and piety of this land ; and she will be 
reminded, by a voice uttered from all the institutions of these 
times, that Episcopacy has had its reign of authority in the 
dark ages, and at the Vatican ; and that the very genius of Pro- 
testantism is, that one church is not to utter the language of 
arrogance over another ; and that not authority or denuncia- 
tion^ but scriptural exposition, is to determine which is in 
accordance with the Book of God. 

In our review, we expressed at length our feelings toward the 
Episcopal Church, (pp. 36-38.) After quoting a part of our 
remarks on this subject, the author of the Answer makes these 
candid and kind observations : — 

" A truly splendid eulogium on our Church, — and one which 
does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to 
prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it, and the honor- 
able frankness which gave it public utterance. With the feel- 
ings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs, 
we have, we can have, no controversy whatever, — we rather 
desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be taught 
more of the grand duty of love, by an opponent who so nobly 
and so delightfully exemplifies it." (p. 19.) 

The author of the "Answer" quoted the whole of our remarks, 
with the exception of the last five lines. In those lines, we 
expressed a hope, that " the Episcopal Church was destined yet 
to be, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and would conse- 
crate her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual 
aggression on the territories of sin and of death." (Review, 
p. 36.) Why this part of our remarks was omitted, as not 
worthy of the comment of being a " splendid eulogium on the 
Church," we know not. The fact was striking. We were not 
" amazed" by it ; but we were conscious of that feeling of pen- 
siveness, which involuntarily steals over the soul, when a Chris- 
tian, high in office and in talent, evinces any degree of cold- 
ness toward the great work of converting the world. W T e could 
not but ask ourselves, Is this to be interpreted as an indication, 
that the author of the " Answer" is alarmed at the word reviv- 
als ? Are we to consider it as an indication, that he could not 









EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 173 

join us in the wish, that the wealth and power of the Episcopal 
Church should be consecrated to the work of saving the world 1 
Are we to understand, that there is such a fear of the word 
revivals, and such a dread of an entire consecration of wealth 
and power to fulfil the special command of Christ, as to induce 
the author of the " Answer" to pause, — in medias res, — in the 
very midst of a quotation, rather than repeat or write the word 
revivals, or speak of such a consecration ? It may have been, 
indeed, wholly an inadvertent omission ; and as we prefer such 
an interpretation, to one which implies suspicion or improper 
motive, we shall close this article as we did the former, with the 
wish, — a wish which shall never depart from our heart, — that, 
whatever may be the strength or the numbers of the Episcopal 
Church, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his 
great power, she may be found foremost among the friends of 
revivals, — of pure spiritual piety, and engaged with untiring 
zeal amidst the van of the Christian host, in making a perpetual 
aggression on the territories of sin and of death. 
15* 



REMARKS 

ON THE 

JU3V. MR. BARNES' SECOND REVIEW OP "EPISCOPACY 
TESTED BY SCRIPTURE," 



The tract " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," remained more 
than three years without any attempt having been made to 
reply to it. In March, 1834, it was reviewed in the Christian 
Spectator by, as is now avowed, the Rev. Mr. Barnes. In May 
following, an answer to this review appeared in the Protestant 
Episcopalian. And in March, 1835, Mr. Barnes issues his 
second review, in reply to this answer ; the two reviews being 
reprinted in continuation, in a small volume, under the title, 
li The Scriptural Argument for Episcopacy Examined," The 
volume has been kindly sent us by the author. Qurs is the 
next turn, and we accordingly present a rejoinder. 

We deem it a source of unfeigned gratulation, that our oppo- 
nent in this controversy has an exalted standing in his own 
denomination, and in the community at large; that he is a gen- 
tleman of talents and learning, and of entire courtesy — and one 
to whose piety and Christian attainments it is a pleasure to do 
homage. 

But be the personal character and qualifications of contro- 
vertists what they may, themselves are not infallible. They 
may make mistakes, argue inconclusively, and even contradict 
themselves. And the cause of truth requires that their argu- 
ments be looked into. This is the duty that now devolves 
on us. 

Our Rev. opponent does us too much honor in taking for 
granted that in our Tract and Answer, ; Hhe scriptural argument 
for Episcopacy is now fairly and entirely before the world." 
There are other scriptural topics used by other writers; such as 
the apostleship of Epaphroditus ; that of the "messengers 
[apostles] of the churches;" the probable deaconship of the 
seventy disciples 5 the rise of the twelve to their full apostleship 
by three steps ; the remarkable prophecy that, after the Jewish 
dispensation, God would " take of [his people] for priests and 
for Levites," which means, as Old Testament language, " for a 
high priest, for priests, and for Levites ;" the existence of those 
three orders in the Mosaic Church ; and, — particularly if it be 
allowed that the whole Christian priesthood as well as that of 
Christ himself, is " after the order of Melchisedcc,"-— the fact, 
that in the patriarchal branch of that order there were both 

( 175 ) 



176 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

"high priests" and "priests." These topics may all be used 
with more or less advantage for Episcopacy ; and they all are 
directly scriptural ; yet not one of them is adverted to in the 
Tract, and only two in the Answer. Our reason was, that we 
did not need them ; we selected such arguments from Scripture 
as would fall readily into the consecutive train of an inductive 
course of reasoning; and we omitted all others. But we did not 
mean to renounce the right to appeal to those we did not there 
adduce; some of them we have employed in other compositions. 
Hence, should Mr. Barnes succeed in refuting "Episcopacy 
Tested by Scripture," he has further work before him, if he 
would refute the whole scriptural claim of Episcopacy. 

Equally mistaken is our Rev. opponent in the allegation that 
we discarded, in the Tract, all use of the fathers, and all other 
extraneous considerations. He has enlarged on this allegation 
in his second review, and thinks that we have retracted the 
admissron with which we set out, and that we manifest an 
apprehension that our cause requires propping from these 
quarters, Not so. We have neither changed our position, nor 
have any fears for its strength. All we have said in our answer 
is, that the fathers may be used as helps in interpreting Scrip- 
ture; they form " an historical basis" for investigating the 
sacred writings, as inspired history, on the subject of Episco- 
pacy : there was no need, therefore, we may say in passing, of 
quoting Webster on the word " basis," and enlarging so inge- 
niously on the over-ample significaney that may be put on it. 
In the Tract, we began with these declarations: "The claim of 
Episcopacy to be of Divine institution, and therefore obligatory, 
on the Church, rests fundamentally on the one question, Has 
it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, it is not necessarily 
binding." "No argument is worth taking into account, that has 
not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic — the scrip- 
tural evidence of Episcopacy." Now, do such declarations just- 
ify the notion that " the only books " to be referred to in the 
discussion, are those of Scripture? Are lexicons to be discarded 
in a merely scriptural argument? books of illustration? com- 
mentators — seeing an inquirer into this subject is but aiming to 
be a commentator? common-sense and common-usage methods 
of interpreting? If not, then why extrude the fathers— not as 
furnishing an independent authority for the matter in question, 
but as affording one "basis" among others, for ascertaining the 
sense of the inspired authorities? Accordingly we announced, 
in the third paragraph of the Tract, that although " little or no 
reference to the fathers" would there be made, yet it was "not 
because their testimony is depreciated ; for it is of paramount 
value, in showing how the Scriptures connected with this con- 
troversy were interpreted by those who knew how the apostles 
themselves understood them." Surely an announcement so 
plain might have been sufficient to save the Rev. reviewer his 
many and earnest remarks on this point. We left the fathers 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 177 

out of our line of argument in the Tract, except as following 
where others led us ; neither did we appeal to them even once, 
except as following the reviewer in the Answer; nor do we 
purpose doing more, while the debate on Episcopacy is confined 
to Scripture. But this does not imply that we treat them as 
non-entities. Episcopacy can do without them ; yet she re- 
joices to be with them. Considering the prejudice against them, 
in part, perhaps, well founded, the readier comprehension of a 
merely scriptural appeal, and the prompt hearing that is accord- 
ed it, we deemed it proper to submit to the public an argument 
of the latter sort — nor is our confidence in it diminished. But 
every mind that claims prerogative for itself, must allow the 
fair claims of mind in general, of other minds, cateris paribus — 
must of course allow reasonable deference to the fathers — and, 
for matters of testimony concerning the things of Scripture, 
must allow the early fathers to be witnesses of even "paramount 
value," provided the thing they attest be really found or inti- 
mated in that volume. 

This doing justice to the fathers is, be it noted, merely a 
defence of the consistency of our two productions, the Tract 
and the Answer. In neither of them have we made use of those 
authorities for the main purposes of the discussion. The 
reviewer was mistaken, in both fact and construction, when he 
allowed himself to write thus : " Slight circumstances often 
show strong inclinations, and habits of mind. How strong a 
hold this reference to other 'considerations' than the Scriptures, 
has taken upon the mind of the author of the Tract, and how 
reluctant he was to part with the c extraneous' argument from 
the fathers, is shown by the fact, that he again recurs to it in 
the { Answer,' and presents it at much greater length." In point 
of fact, the "Answer" does not touch the argument from the 
fathers, except in two slight allusions to Ignatius; and in mak- 
ing those allusions we merely followed the reviewer, who had 
himself glanced at the same writer. 

And so as to other " extraneous " considerations, we adverted 
to them in the Answer, because the reviewer maintained strenu- 
ously that the "burden of proof" lay on us ; for how can the 
question, On whom lies this burden? be decided, without admit- 
ting extraneous topics? or rather, the topics bearing on this 
question are not to be regarded as extraneous to the scriptural 
argument, though some of them are not contained in Scripture. 
"When we read that the sun stood still, we superinduce a strictly 
pertinent exposition from out of Scripture, from philosophy, 
and affirm that it was the earth that stooct still : this surely 
is not extraneous to scriptural exposition. What the Tract 
objected to was, " extraneous and irrelevant" matter; if relevant, 
no topic is to be rejected. For example : the objection founded 
on annulling the orders of Non-episcopal ministers, and even on 
unchurching Non-episcopalians, is a consideration both foreign 
and irrelevant to the debate on Episcopacy ; because, if these 



178 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 

consequences are involved in the decision, they must be put at 
issue, or the debate be silenced : and to argue against Episcopal 
claims because these results may flow from their establishment, 
is so far to take for granted that we have not truth on our side. 
But we do not stray into irrelevant ground, when we adduce 
the facts, that there were or are various grades in the ministries 
of the Patriarchal and Jewish Churches, and in those of Hea- 
thenism, as a presumptive argument that the same feature would 
be engrafted on Christianity ; and when we affirm that a similar 
presumption arises from there being various grades among civil, 
military, naval, corporation, and society officers. The reviewer, 
indeed, asserts that his denomination fulfils what is demanded 
by this latter presumption, by having the "offices" of pastors, 
ruling elders and deacons: but this we deem a play on the word 
"officers," rather than a grasping of the real argument. The 
real argument is, that there must be such grades of officers as 
will discharge the functions of government as they are usually 
discharged. Would he have no higher civil officers than the 
first judge of a county, or the president judge of a district? yet 
a county or district is much larger than a Presbyterian parish. 
Would he say that the judges, sheriffs, and constables fill up the 
analogy with ordinary civil governments? If not, then he 
wants a governor over them, and in that feature we have so much 
presumptive argument for a bishop. The presumption drawn 
from the various grades of the priesthoods of other religions is 
so decisively in our favor, that the reviewer passes it in silence-- 
Non-episcopalians have but one grade to minister in sacred 
things, and no superior grade to govern the other ministers. 

We regard then our presumptive argument drawn from these 
numerous facts, there being also no exceptions worth noticing, 
as uninjured by Mr. Barnes. And we assert that it clearly 
throws the burden of proof on the parity side of the question ; 
we have a right to enter on the investigation of Scripture with 
the presumption that the Christian ministry was constituted, like 
all other ministries, with a distinction of ranks within itself. 
Nor is this right founded on considerations that are either irre- 
levant or extraneous to the scriptural argument. 

We go to Scripture. We there find mention of " apostles and 
elders," and of "bishops and deacons;" elders and [presbyter! 
bishops are the same, by the concession of both parties; and 
thus we have " apostles, and elders, and deacons," the three 
orders of Episcopacy. So far the matter seems clear. But 
objections are raised. 1. It is alleged, that the expression 
"apostles and eiders" is our " lonely Scripture proof of the 
sweeping claims that the apostles only had the power of ordina- 
tion, and that this was the peculiarity of the office." But we 
did not adduce this scripture to show what powers the apostles 
had, but only to show that they were a class distinct from the 
elders, and, as combined with other scriptural considerations, 
that they were "superior to them in ministerial power and 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 179 

rights:" the nature of this superiority in power and rights was 
a different branch of the argument; and that certain powers 
and rights belonged to the apostles, to the exclusion of presby- 
ters, was made to appear from other scriptures. Neither is it 
quite correct to represent the expression " apostles and elders" 
as only one " passage," one " text," as " the solitary text," for it 
occurs at least six times, and is a mode of speaking very remark- 
ably adhered to in all that relates to the council at Jerusalem, 
where the distinction in priestly rank would naturally be recog- 
nised in a formal manner. 2. It is further objected, that though 
this expression shows " that there was a distinction of some sort 
between the apostles and elders," it does not prove the distinction 
to have been an official one. Taken alone it does not ; but com- 
bined with the other scriptural considerations adverted to, it does: 
no other explanation, as the Tract (p. 15) sufficiently evinced, 
will stand. And this is allowed by Mr. Barnes with regard to 
all the other explanations, except one, to which, therefore, we 
next turn. 3. In his first review, Mr. B. regarded as the apos- 
tolic distinction, their being selected to bear witness to the 
" sufferings " and the " resurrection " of Christ. In his second 
review, he expands the ground of their distinction — they were 
" appointed to be witnesses of hrs entire ministry, including the 
fact of his resurrection." This expansion is unfortunate, for 
Paul was one of the Apostles, in the highest sense — in every 
sense ; yet, though a witness of the resurrection, he certainly 
was not a witness of the "entire ministry " of Christ. Nor do 
we read that he witnessed his "sufferings." Hence, we may 
regard the question concerning the apostolic distinction, in 
the phrase " apostles and elders," as being between their func- 
tion as special witnesses of the resurrection, and the official 
superiority we claim for them. Now, what said the Tract on 
this point? "Though the twelve Apostles were selected as special 
witnesses of the resurrection, yet others received that appella- 
tion who were not thus selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andro- 
nicus, Junia," &c. — we ought to have added Barnabas, and 
referred also to the " false apostles," even down, to the year 96, 
in " the church of Ephesus." What did the reviewer say of 
this part of the Tract? not a word; he omitted our allusion to 
the Apostles as "special witnesses of the resurrection;" and 
went on to a long argument to prove this fact, and that in this 
fact rested their distinction. To this plea the Answer replies, 
" Was this distinction the one that led to the expression 'apos- 
tles and elders? 1 Surely not. Among those apostles was Bar- 
nabas, and perhaps Silas, neither of whom was a special witness 
of the resurrection. Besides, the expression ia used with imme- 
diate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and why, in a coun- 
cil acting on questions concerning ' idols, blood, things strangled, 
and licentiousness,' should the special witnesses of the resur- 
rection have, as such, peculiar authority ?" Here are two con- 
clusive arguments against the reviewer's explanation of these 



180 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 

words ; yet not the least attention is given them in the second 
Review ; it being merely alleged that we took " no notice" of his 
" texts." But was not this a sufficient notice of them? did it 
not show, that let his texts prove what they might, they did not 
prove that, in the council at Jerusalem, the "Apostles" were' 
distinguished from the "eiders," as being special witnesses of 
the resurrection? To what, however, do his texts amount? 
they merely declare the thirteen Apostles to be " witnesses," to 
be "chosen" as witnesses, to be, " ordained" as witnesses; but 
does this imply that they were chosen and ordained for nothing 
else? if so, then the thirteen were not chosen or ordained to be 
ministers of the Gospel? if, however, they were chosen and 
ordained to be ministers of the Gospel, as Mr. Barnes allows the 
eleven to have been very early, then their selection and ordina- 
tion was not as special witnesses merely ; and we go to Scrip- 
ture to see what sort of ministers they were, and in what lay 
the distinction which placed them, and the others called apostles, 
in a class separate from the ministers called elders. By such 
an appeal to Scripture we find, as the Tract will show, that the 
apostles ordained, and presbyters did not ; that the apostles had 
authority over presbyters ; and that they exercised discipline 
over their heads. 

But Mr. Barnes will perhaps remind us that we have still 
omitted one of his texts — " Am I not an apostle ? am I not free? 
have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? are not ye my work in 
the Lord ?" From these words he infers, in common with some 
other writers, that to have " seen" Christ was an essential quali- 
fication for the apostleship. But surely, in the first place, this 
is taking the drift of Paul's argument for granted, for we may 
just as well understand the passage as giving four separate 
topics of animadversion on certain Corinthians for their oppo- 
sition to him, as regard the third topic in the light of a proof of 
the first. In the next place, if the third topic is a proof of the 
first, the second ought to be the same, and then " freedom," i. e. 
the right to take clerical maintenance, or decline it, was one of 
the marks of the thirteen pre-eminent " apostles!" whereas it 
belonged to every minister. So of the fourth topic ; were not 
Paul and all the others " apostles " as soon as they had their 
commission, and before they had done any of their " work in 
the Lord ?" We say then, that the Non-episcopal argument 
drawn from this passage is utterly valueless. Dr. Hammond 
gives the true meaning — [he full meaning, for it cannot be made 
to imply more, without a petitio principii, and without making 
nonsense of the second and fourth topics. " I may surely say 
four things of myself: 1. That I am an apostle of Christ, called 
from heaven immediately to that office; 2. That I had no obli- 
gation to do what I have done among you, that is, to preach on 
free cost to you, as I have; that I discern my Christian liberty 
so well that I know I might have done otherwise ; 3. That 
though I icas none of Christ's followers here on earth, yet I 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 181 

have been equalled to them by seeing and being spoken to by 
Christ out of heaven ; and, 4. That 1 am certainly he that con- 
verted you to the faith, that planted the Gospel at Corinth, and 
so surely am not unworthy to be considered by you." To close 
this part of the discussion, we suggest, that regarding these four 
topics as separate, which they certainly are, St. Paul here makes 
his tt apostleship" a privilege entirely distinct from that of his 
having " seen Jesus Christ." 

When Paul exclaimed, " Are all apostles?" he obviously 
allowed that some might be apostles who were not special wit- 
nesses of the resurrection. If none others could be apostles, the 
exclamation would have been against an argument of straw. 
The same result flows from the case of the " false apostles," who 
continued their pretensions down to the year 96. (Rev. ii. 2.} 
There could have been no false apostles, had there been no real 
ones but the thirteen — none but those who were special witnesses 
of the resurrection. Unless the true apostles had become 
numerous, the false would have had no chance for their impos- 
ture. And in the year 96 none of the thirteen remained but 
St. John ; yet there were then so many apostles that pretenders 
could claim the office without being instantly rejected as not 

having been " special witnesses." We hope the Rev. reviewer 

is now satisfied with our " notice " of his " proof-texts." 

We stated in the Tract that " it would not be questioned" that 
the apostles were officially superior to the elders. Our Rev. 
opponent, without denying this assertion, i. e. " it will not be 
questioned," placed it in a ridiculous light. We then adduced 
several Presbyterian authorities, who allowed the apostles' offi- 
cial superiority, and who thus proved that this assertion of ours 
was fairly made. To this the reviewer replies, that we quoted 
them "to prove that the apostles were superior to the elders f 
whereas we brought them, not to prove the fact, but merely that 
the fact " would not be questioned" by Presbyterians — and surely, 
for this purpose, their sentiments are not to be regarded as 
"extraneous considerations." The reviewer further replies, 
that these divines only assert the apostles to be superior to the 
elders " in some respects, or, that there was a distinction between 
them." Not so ; they do not speak thus vaguely ; the extracts 
under four of the six heads assert their " official" superiority ; 
that from Dr. Miller, their "vested authority over other minis- 
ters ;" and Dr. Campbell calls them " universal bishops," as 
distinguished from local pastors or parochial bishops. On the 
point that the ministerial superiority of the apostles " would 
not be questioned," the authority of these divines was ex- 
plicit, and sufficient to justify the assertion. Nor do we per- 
ceive that that assertion is even now denied or questioned by 
the reviewer. 

In our Answer to the first Review, we expanded a certain 
note in the Tract, and showed that the Apostle Paul exercised 
discipline, and claimed the right of exercising discipline, in 
16 



182 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 

churches were there were elders ; the cases recorded being the 
Churches of Corinth and Ephesus. To this our Rev. opponent 
objects — 1. That it is " remarkable " that only the disciplinary 
acts of Paul are mentioned in Scripture, not those of the other 
Apostles : but is it not just as " remarkable" that, in the Acts, 
after the travels and doings of Paul are fairly introduced to 
notice, almost nothing is said of the travels and doings of the 
rest of the thirteen ? is it not just as remarkable that Paul fur- 
nishes fourteen epistles, and all the rest only seven ? 2. He objects 
that so few instances of discipline are recorded : but we reply, 
that we must take the record of the Holy Spirit as we find it, 
and make it our authority; that there are no cases recorded of 
discipline by presbyters; and that we adduced passages in which 
the right to inflict discipline is claimed by an apostle indivi- 
dually, without intimating the operation or the co-operation of 
the presbyters concerned ; which passages the reviewer leaves 
unnoticed. 3. He objects that in the cases of discipline exer- 
cised by Paul, Timothy and Titus were present and unnoticed, 
which is so much disparagement of their Episcopal claims. 
Here also we have an easy reply ; we never said, as the reviewer 
alleges, that Titus was in Corinth or in Ephesus when these acts 
Of discipline respectively were inflicted ; neither does he attempt 
to prove it That Timothy was not in Corinth at that time, or 
not expected to be there, though he had been sent thither, is 
evident, from the last chapter of the first epistle — "f/Timotheus 
come" &c; and that the discipline mentioned had been inflicted 
at Ephesus before Timothy was placed there, is twice allowed 
by the reviewer himself; the contrary has never been main- 
tained by us ; and Paul speaks of it as a past occurrence in 
writing the first epistle to Timothy; it happened previous to 
the time of Timothy's being put in charge of that diocese. 
How then stand these cases? just as was stated in our Tract 
and Answer. Paul individually inflicts discipline in Corinth 
and Ephesus, though there were elders in both churches, who, 
on the Presbyterian theory, ought to have inflicted it. 4. But it is 
further objected, that they were peculiar cases; bodily disease, 
miraculously produced, being part of the penalty; and none but 
the Apostles (the thirteen) having this miraculous power. Such 
we understand to be the reviewer's argument. We think, how- 
ever, it is of no force. In the case at Corinth, the offender was 
" delivered unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh ;" but in 
that at Ephesus, the offenders were only " delivered unto 
Satan." Now, as to the " delivery to Satan," it means only 
excommunication — so we think, with many commentators — and 
it certainly need not mean any thing more: as the conversion of 
men, and bringing them into the Church, was "turning them 
from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive for- 
giveness of sins ;" so when the sins of any one were " retained," 
and he was excommunicated, he was ejected from the favor of 
God, and given back to Satan. In the Presbyterian Forms of 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 183 

Process, (1. 15,) one of these very passages is quoted as authority 
for "the highest censure of the Church."* Such was the disci- 
pline in the cases at Ephesus ; and it was the act, not of the 
. presbyters, but of an apostle. As to the expression, " the 
destruction of the flesh," some commentators do not interpret it 
of a miraculous infliction; others do: conceding the latter, we 
are to remember that there were "workers of miracles" in 
Corinth; and therefore, if that church or its elders had the 
power of supreme discipline, they could have exercised it even 
with this extraordinary penalty, without the intervention of 
St. Paul; yet he alone does this act, which proves that supreme 
discipline was not intrusted to either the church or its elders. 
Such was the mode of passing the "highest censure" on the 
offender at Corinth. 

It is further alleged, however, by our Rev. opponent, that in 
the context of one of these passages, (1 Cor. v.) " it is supposed 
that they [the church at Corinth] did themselves usually exer- 
cise discipline," nay, that Paul " supposes that it ought to have 
been done in this case." To these two allegations we oppose 
the reviewer's own words in the next paragraph but one — " The 
circumstances of the early churches were such as to make this 
apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable. .... In 
most cases their founders were with them but a few weeks. f and 
then left them under the care of elders ordained from among 
themselves. Those elders would be poorly qualified to dis- 
charge the functions of their office The churches must be 

imperfectly organized; unaccustomed to rigid discipline; ex- 
posed to many temptations ; easily drawn into sin ; and subject 
to great agitation and excitement." Now, if such were the con- 
dition of both elders and people at Corinth, how could Paul 
have expected them to exercise discipline, either in this aggra- 
vated case, or "usually?" or how can the reviewer imagine 
that Paul looked for their action, when he declares that it was 
morally impossible for them to act ? Nay, if such were " the 
early churches," and their elders, how can he claim any scrip- 
ture whatever for their having discipline intrusted to them ? — 
such a fact would be a final presumptive argument against 
interpreting Scripture to that effect. He pleads, however, the 
clause, "Do not ye judge them that are within" the church? 
So doubtless their elders did in lighter matters, even to the lesser 
excommunication; but the action of Paul in this case shows 



* In the Biblical Repertory for April. 1835, (p. 232,) we find the same use of th» 
stronger of these passages, by the * Antiburgher Synod," in Scotland, — " Accord- 
ingly the sentence of the greater excommunication was, on the 9th August, 
1749, pronounced upon the aforesaid persons; 'casting them out from the commu- 
nion of the Church of Chbist ; delivering them unto Satan, for the destruction 
of the flesh, 1 " <fec. When Presbyterians want this passage of Scripture for their own 
purposes, they perceive very readily that it does not relate to a supernatural penalty. 

t At Corinth, Paul "continued a year and six months," and " after this tarried 
there yet a good while." (Acts xviii. 11, 18.) 



184 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 

that they did not inflict the greater. The clause, indeed, may 
not refer to official acts, in the Corinthian church, but only to 
the 'personal discountenance of offenders ; hence Doddridge 
says, "Do not even you, in your more private capacity, judge 
those that are within ? I have taught you that every private 
Christian should be concerned in his station to maintain the disci- 
pline of the Church of Christ, and to bear his testimony against 
disorderly walkers, which may at present have a place in it." 

So of the case at Thessalonica— -" If any man obey not our 
word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with 
him, that he may be ashamed." Mr. Barnes declares that this 
was a direction to that church " to exercise discipline." But 
how can he make this appear ? The natural sense of the words 
is that Christians, in their " private capacity," should avoid such 
offenders; it does not extend to official proceedings. He who 
contends for the latter view, must allow also that "the elect 
lady" exercised discipline—" If any man come unto you, and 
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither 
bid him God speed." Our Rev. opponent will see that his mode 
of arguing proves too much. He surely does not suppose that 
ecclesiastical discipline was committed to a " lady," or to a 
" lady and her children." 

The reviewer brings into fresh notice the elders of Ephesus, 
and those addressed by St. Peter, and concludes that they 
" were intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent . . . 
instructing, directing, and governing the Jlock." Who denies 
this? not we, certainly ; except so far as an appeal to the bishop 
Qualifies the expression " fullest extent." Neither do "the 
canons of the Episcopal Church." But where does he find that 
elders " ruled " elders ? that presbyter-bishops governed presby- 
ter-bishops ? That is the point ; and the Non-episcopal world 
has long been challenged, but in vain, to make it good. But he 
is unlucky in conceding thus plainly "pastoral care to the full- 
est extent" to the elders of Ephesus : for he says, in the course 
of a few pages, " In our Review we showed that all the facts in 
the case of the elders at Ephesus are met by the supposition that 
they were ruling elders." What! Have ruling elders "the 
pastoral care to the/idlest extent ?" are they deemed " bishops" 
by the Presbyterians; the Ephesian elders being thus called in 
Acts xx.? — See also the Presbyterian Form of Government, 
ch. iii. Of these " bishops " Mr. Barnes says—" There is no 
counsel given them about the proper mode of administering 
the sacraments," implying that they had not the right to do so ; 
yet of those at Philippi he writes — "The other class, the 4 bish- 
ops,' constitute the preaching order, or the clergy, those to 
whom were committed the preaching of the word, the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments," &c. What are we to make of these 
contradictory expositions? Is it intended to save the Presbyte- 
rian argument, that there were no "clergy" at Ephesus, only 
"ruling elders," when Timothy was placed there? And is it 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 185 

asserted that, though Philippi included "a group of churches," 
Ephesus had but " one flock," the former in the year 64, the 
latter in 96, to elude the Episcopal argument drawn from " the 
angel of the church of Ephesus?" We cannot impute the 
unfairness of a eovert motive 10 our Rev. opponent. But we 
have a right to express our regret, that he was not more vigilant 
against mistakes that amount to inconsistency. 

He says that " no one will pretend that bishops are referred 
to" in the passages, " remember them which have the rule over 
you," " obey them that have the rule over you." This is a mis- 
take as to "one" person at least; for we made the "assertion," 
in the Tract, (p. 2 ,) that they referred to " the Episcopal 
ministry : " other writers also take the same view o/ these pas- 
sages. We even intimated that they amount to a "command" 
to conform to that, the only scriptural model of the holy office. 
And we now intimate the same of the passage, " know them 
which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord" — and 
this we do, though our Rev. opponent thinks " there can be 
no question " that it is c> applied to presbyters." Our reason he 
will see in the Tract. 

He "asks for a solitary passage which directs apostles or 
prelates to administer discipline." If he means to halt at the 
words " apostles" and " prelates," he will halt on words only, not 
on things. We call Timothy an apostle, and Timothy and Titus 
prelates; but call them what you will, they individually, with 
no mention of the elders, are desired to " administer discipline" 
— yes, frequently, as the Tract fully evinced— " that thou might- 
est charge some that they teach no other doctrine — against an 
elder receive not f thou] an accusation, but before two or three 
witnesses — them II rat sin, rebuke [thoit] before all — I charge 
thee, that thou observe these things — from such turn [thou] 
away, or,such turn [thoii] away — whose mouths must be stop- 
ped wherefore, rebuke [thou} them sharply, that they may 

be sound in the faith — rebuke [thou] with all authority. Let no 
man despise thee — a man that is a heretic [do thou'} reject." 
All these directions to administer discipline are giveu to indivi- 
dual' ministers, over the heads of the elders. Add to these the 
passages m which the actual infliction of discipline, or the 
right to inflict it, are mentioned, pertaining to apostles and 
other individuals, without reference to elders, as given in our 
Tract and Answer, and the evidence for this feature of Episco- 
pacy will be superabundant. How, in the face of the first porr 
tion of this evidence, that relating ta Timothy, besides what 
refers to his right to ordain— how could the reviewer say, thai 
"the epistles to Timothy . . . .contain no description of his. own 
office as a prelate \ n they do describe that office — they describe 
it amply and clearly. 

So clear is the testimony of " the writings of Paul " of Timo- 
thy's " having first received the episcopate at Ephesus," that 
Eusebius — so at least it appears to us — recognises that testi- 
16* 



186 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

moiiy. In B. 3, ch. 4, of which the title is, " The first Succes- 
sors of the Apostles," he says, " But how many and which of 
these, actuated by a genuine zeal, were judged suitable to 
feed the churches established by these apostles, it is not easy to 
say, any further than may be gathered from the writings of 
Paul. For he, indeed, had innumerable fellow-laborers, or as 
he himself calls them, fellow-soldiers in the Church. Of these 
the greater part are honored with an indelible remembrance by 
him in his epistles, where he gives a lasting testimony concern- 
ing them. Luke also, in his Acts, speaking of his friends, men- 
tions them by name. Timothy, indeed, is recorded as having 
first received the episcopate at Ephesus, as Titus also was 
appointed over the churches in Crete." (Cruse's Eusebius, 
p. 84.) Eusebius speaks of the comparative insufficiency of his 
other sources of information on this point, as contrasted with 
"the writings of Paul." Those il writings," then, must have 
been his authority, or at least sustained him, in saying that 
Timothy was set " over " the church at Ephesus— he construed 
them as Episcopalians do. He did the same with the scrips 
tures relating to Titus. 

The reviewer still insists that Timothy is not called an " apos- 
tle " in Scripture. What are the facts ? Paul begins, 1 Thess., 
in the name of himself, Silvanus, and Timothy — in the second 
chapter he says, " We might have been burdensome to you as 
the apostles of Christ " — and that he does not use the plural 
number in the singular sense, is evident in the next verse but one, 
" we were willing to have imparted unto you our own souls." 
Now, as one man has but one " soul," if Paul were speaking 
Of himself only, he would have said " our own soul;" hut as he 
uses the plural word " souls," it is clear that fie alluded there to 
Silvanus and Timothy with himself. Just as clear, of course, it 
is, that he alluded to all the three in the phrase u apostles of 
Christ" — and thus Silvanus and Timothy are called < ( apos- 
tles " in Scripture. But the reviewer objects that, in a previous 
verse of the same chapter, Paul speaks of the persecution at 
Philippi — u we were shamefully entreated;" and that as only 
Paul and Silas were beaten and put in prison, Timothy was not 
with them in that city ; and that thus the plural sense of " apos- 
tles" is untenable. We have answered, that Timothy is declared 
to have been with Paul before and after that persecution, 
and that there is no intimation that they were parted in the 
meantime. We further answer — though only Paul and Silas 
were beaten and imprisoned, others then belonged to their 
company, as appears from the expression, " the same followed 
Paul and us," (Acts xvi. 17,) which implies that besides Silas, 
Luke the writer, and probably others, were in Paul's retinue at 
the time; these were not so severely used; and this destroys 
the ground taken by the reviewer, that Timothy could not 
then have been in Philippi, simply because he did not suffer as 
much as those two. Again : Paul says to the Philippians, of 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 187 

Timothy, " Ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the 
father, he hath served with me in the Gospel," (ii. 22 ;) this 
implies that the Philippians had become personally acquainted 
with Timothy, and when he was with them in company with Paul ; 
yet it is not recorded that Paul and Timothy had been together 
at Philippi, except at the time of the persecution mentioned ; 
it is only said they were afterward in Macedonia: hence Dod- 
dridge and Macknight agree, that in the verse quoted, Paul 
alludes to Timothy's being in that city at the time mentioned. 
Indeed we know of no one, but Mr. Barnes, who denies this 
fact. That Timothy is left out of sight in some parts of the 
narrative, hi Acts xvi. and xvii., may have been owing to his 
youth, and his not being deemed by the persecutors so import- 
ant a person as Paul and Silas; besides their being milder 
with him on account of his Gentile descent — they "looked 
upon Paul and Silas," says Doddridge, " as much more consi- 
derable than Timothy and Luke." — Hear, on the meaning of the 
word "apostles," the opinion of Macknight: "The apostle and 
his assistants were not influenced by any of those motives 
which actuate impostors. Instead of seeking to make ourselves 
powerful or rich by the Gospel, we never demanded the honor 
of obedience, nor of maintenance, either from you or from 
others; although we could have been, burdensome to you in 
both these respects, as the apostles of Christ. The truth is, as 
apostles, they had authority from their Master to enjoin their 
disciples what was fit." This he says in the "View" preceding 
the chapter. In the translation he says, " As Christ's messen- 
gers"— so decidedly does the word a*ooTo\oi apply to all the 
three who join in the epistle. Hear also the opinion of T. Hart- 
well Home : he says, in his Analysis of the Epistle, " The 
character, behavior and views of the first preachers of the Gos- 
pel are an evidence of its truth. The apostles and their assist- 
ants, by preaching the Gospel, every where brought upon them- 
selves all manner of present evils, without obtaining the least 
temporal advantage." Again, " The second argument, taken from 
the character, behavior, and views of its first preachers^ This 
Divine regards Paul as including his " assistants" with himself, 
through the whole passage in which the word " apostles" is 
found ; it follows, of course, that they also are here called apos- 
tles'. Hear, yet further, the opinion of Matthew Henry : he says, 
on this chapter, Paul " could appeal to the Thessalonians, how 
faithfully he, and Silas, and Timotheus . . . .had discharged 
their office "—"He tells them they might have used greater 
authority as apostles" * We trust we have now settled the two 
points— that Timothy was at Philippi, at the period mentioned 
—and that Paul does call him and Silas " apostles." * Some 
other objections in Mr. Barnes' first review had been already 

* We add, as authorities for including Timothy and Silvanus under the appel- 
lation "apostles," the following— Estius, (Po, Syn.) Whitby, J, Brown, of Had. 
dington, and A. Clarke, 



188 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW QF 

answered in the Protestant Episcopalian for March and Novem- 
ber, 1S31. On the objection that Paul, in some places, calls 
Timothy only his " brother," we may add, that Peter calls 
Paul " our beloved brother 5" James says to Paul, " Thou seest, 
brother;" Paul says, "I found not Titus, my brother;" Ana- 
nias says to Paul, already an apostle, " Brother Saul, receive thy 
sight:" this is evidence enough that the appellation does not 
imply, as given to Timothy, that he was not an apostle. 

The chief value of this fact— that Timothy is called an "apos- 
tle" in Scripture — is, its routing finally the Non-episcopal plea, 
that Timothy had superior power at Ephesus merely as an 
"evangelist." An apostle had full power, as such, and could 
have nothing added to it from having also the latter designa- 
tion. Philip and Timothy are the only individuals to whom 
that designation is applied ; and there is no evidence that 
Philip had any special power as an evangelist; neither can 
there be evidence to that effect in the case of Timothy, since his 
apostleship gave him all the power a minister can have. Fare- 
well, then, to this puny argument! Our Rev. opponent had 
too much penetration and accuracy of judgment to make any 
use of it in either of his reviews. 

We may here add, in passing, that the fact of Timothy's 
being an "apostle," shows that lie could not, have been ordained 
as such " with the laying on of the hands" of a Presbyterian 
" presbytery." 

So again : Timothy being an "apostle," the direction of Paul 
to him — "The things which thou hast heard of me among 
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who 
shall be able to teach others also," is a "command" to transmit 
the apostolic office. That passage is understood by all the 
commentators now within our reach, of the perpetuation of the 
ministerial office — seeM. Henry, Doddridge, Maekiught, Poole's 
Annotations, Hammond— and as the grade of that office held 
by Timothy from Paul was the apostolic, that, " the same" 
must have been the grade he was to " commit," to transmit for 
the purpose of succession. 

Yet, further: Timothy being an "apostle," and being "com- 
manded" to transjnit the apostleship to successors, we have 
clear enough evidence of the ministerial grade of the " angel of 
the Church of Ephesus" some thirty years afterward. If he 
was not Timothy the "apostle" himself, he was one of his 
apostolic successors. Such, likewise, of course, were the other 
six " angels," 

These are unavoidable results from the fact that Timothy is 
denominated an "apostle" by St. Paul. Some of them are 
indeed sufficiently established by the general argument, that 
Timothy individually held a station in the Church superior to 
that of the presbyter-bishops, and that Paul gives directions 
what such ministers as Timothy are to do "till the appearing of 
Jesus Christ," i. e. till the consummation, of things. Add, how- 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 189 

ever, to the general argument this specific one, and the evidence 
for Episcopacy, and the permanence of Episcopacy, is such as 
no talent or zeal can overthrow. 

Our Rev. opponent refers, for the support of part of his 
argument, to Bishop Stillingfleet — forgetful of the rule, that 
writers who have contradicted themselves are not to be appealed 
to, on either side. Bishop Stillingfleet unsaid, in later life, what 
he had said against Episcopacy in his earlier career. 

As to the supposed break in the chain of the English Episco- 
pal succession, in the cases of Aydan and Finan, we refer the 
Rev. reviewer to a full reply in the Churchman, transferred to 
the Protestant Episcopalian for December, 1834. This objection 
may do for those who are objection-hunters — it is not worthy of 
the notice of our able and candid opponent. He cannot suppose 
that it has any bearing on the questions — Is Episcopacy set forth 
in Scripture ? Is it there set forth as a permanent institution ? 
If these questions be answered in the negative, there is no 
need of seeking a break in the Episcopal succession. If in the 
affirmative, then, indubitably, we must presume the succession 
good, except where clear evidence exists to the contrary, or at 
least a doubt of overwhelming magnitude. There is, however, 
no sufficient reason to think that the Episcopal succession failed 
in the case of these two persons, and the presumptive argument 
is so entirely against it, that the objection is unworthy of notice. 
Successive ordinations must, from the nature of the case, depend 
mainly for their evidence on notoriety — for manuscript records 
of such things are liable to mistakes and perversions, and also to 
extinction — u there are slight mistakes in the genealogy of our 
Lord, and that of the Jewish priesthood was not uniformly 
perfect" — and in the records of the ordinations of the multitudes 
of bishops that have existed, were they all preserved by suc- 
cessive copies, there would unquestionably be errors innume- 
rable, and now beyond correction. Notoriety, however, is an 
all-sufficient authentication of a matter of fact. And on the 
claims of notoriety, we may safely rest all Episcopal consecra- 
tions in the seventh century. Bede, the historian referred 
to in raising the objection before us, has obviously been mis- 
understood. 

The final topic, in the way of argument, of the reviewer, is 
this— one scriptural example of a Presbyterian ordination is 
enough to disprove the claim, " that none but prelates ordained" 
— and such an example is given in the text, "Neglect not the gift 
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery." We join issue with him on 
this text, and will go again, and somewhat more largely, into the 
argument concerning it. 

We stated in the Tract, that it was allowed on all hands that 
the Apostles ordained. We showed also, that Timothy and 
Titus had the ordaining power. So far, we believe, there is no 
question: this point is clear. W T e argued likewise, that it is 



190 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 

not clear that presbyters ordained ; on the contrary, they were 
omitted in the directions for performing that duty ; and therefore 
the Apostles and Timothy and Titns ordained in virtue of a 
righ.t which it could not be proved that presbyters possessed — 
in other words, they ordained in virtue of their being a grade of 
ministers superior to presbyters, or different from them, if the 
word ' superior' be disliked. 

How did we show that the text quoted is not a clear record of 
a Presbyterian ordination? We did it by presenting several 
considerations, which, at the lowest estimate, make this con- 
struction of the passage doubtful ; and which, fairly weighed, 
cancel the whole claim thus built on it. Some of these we here 
repeat, and add further arguments to the same effect. 

1. ft cannot be proved that the passage refers to ordination of 
any kind. A gift, x a ? l °t* a i given by prophecy, may justly be 
regarded as some extraordinary spiritual endowment - y and it is 
so regarded by various commentators. Or, the " prophecy" here 
mentioned, and the laying on of hands, may be held analogous 
to the inspired separation of Barnabas and Paul, who were 
apostles already, to a particular sphere of apostolic duty, which 
was done by "prophets;" (Acts xiii;) and thus Timothy had his 
"charge" at Ephesus "committed unto him according to the 
prophecies which went before on him." Neither of these expo- 
sitions is strained; they both are natural. The latter of themy 
we fully believe, would be assigned by a commentator whose 
mind was not pre-occupied with questions concerning ordination, 
and who would make the sole rule of his interpretation the 
"comparing Scripture with Scripture." It is doubtful then, 
reasonably doubtful, whether the text refers to ordination at all. 
And here we make our stand— though we carry onward the 
argument, for the sake of those who do not agree with us. 

2. Conceding, for the purpose of further investigation, that 
Timothy's ordination is here referred to, it is not clear that the 
word translated "presbytery" means a body of ordainers— it 
may mean * presbytership,' the ministerial office — with the laying 
on of hands for conferring the presbytership — and, under that 
construction, the passage does not say whose hands were laid on 
Timothy for this purpose. For this meaning of the word we 
adduced the authority of Jerome. Ambrose, Calvin, and Grotius.* 
Are not such authorities sufficient to render doubtfullhe allusion 
of the passage to ordination by presbyters? And what does 
Mr. Barnes oppose to this argument and its authority? — 1. That 
it makes Timothy an elder, and so not an apostle ; which is just 
as conclusive as to say that Peter and John, being called "elders," 
could not have been apostles 2. That the word in question 
means a body of elders in two other places ; so it does, and yet may 

* Poole says, in his Synopsis — "Ita vocem hanc accipiunt Hieron. Amb. Graeci 
in Cone. Nicen. can. 2. Ancyr. can. 18. Euseb. et Soc." Surely the word is not, 
as Mr. B. alleges, "fixed in its meaning, in the usage of the Church:" even if it 
were, does church usage control the interpretation of ScriDture? 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 191 

mean only the clerical office here. 3. That Suicer, quoting from 
Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylaet, and Ignatius, gives the 
word the sense of a "college of presbyters:" we have not Suicer 
at hand, but are very sure that not one of his quotations can refer 
to ordinations by mere presbyters; we are sure also, that if he 
quotes Jerome and Ambrose fully, he must give the sense of 
"presbytership" to the Greek word. 4. That Grotius, in recog- 
nising this latter sense of the word, speaks of the presbyters 
laying on hands with the princeps of their body ; and that Calvin, 
in his commentary, interprets the word of " the college of pres- 
byters :" but surely these replies leave the whole matter in even 
greater doubt : Grotius, though he mentions the presbyters' 
laying on hands, declines adducing the text before us as a proof 
of their right to do so, because its meaning is uncertain ; and 
Calvin gives one meaning to -nptofivTzpiov in his Institutes, (for 
which, says Dr. Miller, he deserves nothing but ridicule !) and 
in his Commentary, a later production, he prefers the other 
meaning — only prefers it — for he adds, "Although, all things 
considered, I confess a different sense answers not badly, that it 
should be the name of office" — now, what but doubt, increased 
[may we not say, irremediable] doubt, can result from the hesita- 
tion of these learned men concerning the meaning of the word ! 
Such is the predicament in which the highest Presbyterian 
authority, to say nothing of the other authorities mentioned, 
leaves the only text which Mr. Barnes adduces for his cause, the 
" solitary text," the " lonely Scripture proof!" 

3. Granting, yet further, that the word should be "presbytery," 
and that it means a body of " elders," it still is not clear that 
presbyter-bishops, or they only, were meant. Two of the 
Apostles call themselves elders — and thus the "presbytery" 
may have consisted of apostles only : and Paul and Silas, both 
apostles, were at Lystra, when Paul took Timothy "with him." 
Again: Paul speaks of the gift which was in Timothy by the 
laying on of his hands ; and the same arguments which make the 
other passage apply to ordination, will unavoidably make this 
also: hence, if an ordination was meant, Paul must have officiat- 
ed at it, whoever else did; and thus the act was an apostolical 
one, and the transaction affords no proof that presbyters alone 
can ordain. More doubt then, as we proceed, is gathered round 
the Presbyterian exposition of this passage — and this doubt is 
fairly and honestly adduced; it arises, not by conjuration, but 
naturally and inevitably. 

4. If it be said that the "elders" in this supposed ordaining 
" presbytery" are to be regarded as of the specific kind, presby- 
ter-bishops or pastors— that this meaning of the word has the 
preference by the laws of language, — we reply, besides refer- 
ring to our Tract, that our Presbyterian friends have cut them- 
selves off from taking advantage of this argument, by putting 
two kinds of elders into their " presbyteries," the specific kind, 
and the ruling-elder kind; and so we may unite the apostolic 



192 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

sort and the presbyter sort in such a body. Their Form of 
Government says, " A presbytery consists of all the ministers^ 
and one ruling elder from each congregation, within a certain 
district" — and at the ordination of a pastor, "the presbytery" 
is to be " convened," and is to " lay on hands." 

5. From this it appears that the lay elders are to join in the 
imposition of hands. Not having witnessed a Presbyterian ordi- 
nation, we know not what is the practice; but such is the 
authenticated direction, and if it be not fulfilled, the ordination 
is not by the presbytery of their own defining. Do the lay 
elders, in this act, unite in conferring the pastoral commission ? 
or do they only give consent to what is done by the ordainers 
proper ? The former they cannot do— not being ministers them- 
selves, they cannot make other men ministers. The latter then 
is the function assigned to them — they give consent; the ordi- 
nation is "by" the laying on of the hands of the pastoral 
elders, (strictly of the " presiding" one,) and " with" the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the lay elders. Here is a distinction 
between by and with, quite independent of the " learned criti- 
cism" that has been bestowed on the Greek words; and we 
may avail ourselves of it, in discussing the theory of Timothy's 
being ordained by the laying on of Paul's hands, and with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery. In doing so, we 
take the authority of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, 
whether their practice conforms to them or not. If they deny 
our construction of their rules, they make two kinds of presbyte- 
ries — and then, what results but further doubt concerning " pres- 
bytery " in the passage before us ? — they define a presbytery, 
and then depart from their own definition — which of the two 
kinds is the scriptural one? which has scriptural authority ? 

fSince writing the last paragraph, we have consulted Buck's 
Dictionary, and find that in the Church of Scotland, the pastoral 
are distinguished from the ruling elders in two particulars — 
they only lay on hands in ordaining pastors — and the presiding 
officer of the presbytery is chosen from among them. We 
have made inquiries also concerning the practice in Presbyte- 
rian ordinations in this country, and learn that the ruling elders 
do not impose hands with the pastors — though the opinion is 
not unsupported, that they ought to do so. On this evidence, 
combined with that of the Presbyterian standards, we offer the 
following remarks: 1. If the "presbytery" of the standards is 
the same as that supposed to be mentioned in the epistle to 
Timothy, then the lay, as well as the pastoral elders, ought to 
lay on hands. Yet in fact they do not. Of course, under this 
construction, Presbyterian ordinations are not scriptural. 2. If 
the "presbytery" of the standards is not that of Paul's epistle, 
then the Presbyterians have not a scriptural church govern- 
ment: for no other Christian presbytery is mentioned in the 
New Testament. And further, they make, under one name, 
two ecclesiastical bodies ; the one for governing, which is not 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 193 

found in Scripture, but only in their standards ; the other for 
ordaining, said by them to be in Scripture; while yet this say 
is unsaid by the fact that not this, but only the other presbytery 
is found in their standards. That their presbytery ought to 
include ruling elders, they cannot deny, since their standards so 
declare: yet that the scriptural presbytery included them they 
cannot affirm, for their practice presumes it did not. What — 
with Scripture alleged on one hand, and the General Assembly 
speaking clearly on the other — what is the " presbytery ?" 
Can any thorough Presbyterian tell us, without risk from one 
or the other of the horns of this dilemma? We think not — all is 
doubt on that subject. 3. If the nature of things be appealed to, 
and it be said that ruling elders cannot belong to an ordaining 
presbytery, because they cannot confer an office which them* 
selves do not possess, then we ask, Why are they put into the 
presbytery at all? Why is there any other than an ordaining 
presbytery? Why has the General Assembly made no such 
ordaining presbytery as is contended for? Scripture having 
sanctioned, as interpreted by Presbyterians, a presbytery of 
pastors only, and only for "laying on of hands," where is the 
scriptural authority for a governing presbytery, and for its 
comprising ruling elders ? 4. We have further to say, that if, on 
Presbyterian principles, the ruling elders ought to lay on hands 
with the pastors, — if this opinion has a claim to be included in 
the argument before us, it pleads, of course, the Scripture, men- 
tioned for its support; and then, on that theory, the actual 
ordinations of Presbyterians are unscriptural, as well as con- 
trary to their own Form of Government — the latter defect 
making them uncanonical, the General Assembly being the 
judge, and the former making them void. 

The General Assembly declares that .ordination is to be 
"with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, according 
to the apostolic example;" it declares the "presbytery," the 
only one it defines, to include ruling elders; these, therefore, 
to conform to u the apostolic example," ought to lay on hands, 
but they do not; therefore, by its own showing, the ordina- 
tions in the communion of the General Assembly, are not 
" according to the apostolic example."] 

6. To estimate the magnitude of the doubtfulness of the 
Presbyterian construction of the text before us, referring, as 
they say, to the ordination of Timothy, we must look to expo- 
sitors of good character, and see how they interpret both that 
passage, and whatever of Scripture may bear on the point of 
his ordination. Some, of course, give the usual Presbyterian 
expositions. But while many others, of high authority, present 
different views of the matter, we must hold the topic to be 
overshadowed with too much doubt to be availing in behalf of 
the Non-episcopal scheme. 

Jerome and Ambrose, Eusebius and Socrates, Nice and An- 
cyra— these, says Poole, declare that office was meant in the 
17 



194 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

words, "laying on of the hands tqv irpwpvrspiov." So likewise do 
Lyra and others. (See Leigh.) 

Grotius says, he does not " dare" to adduce those words for 
the imposition, in ordination, of the hands of presbyters. 

Calvin "halts," at the least, "between the two opinions" — 
that the words refer to presbyters — and that they refer to 
presbytership. 

T. Scott, also, though he thinks a body of presbyters is 
meant, adds, " Or the ministerial office itself may be intended." 

Poole's Annotations — argues — Neglect neither the abilities 
nor the office — " remember that they were given thee by the 
revelation of the Divine will, or by the extraordinary influence 
of the Spirit of God, and the laying on of hands of the presby- 
tery was a declaration of it." In other words, the whole 
transaction was a "supernatural" one; and the act of the 
presbytery "declaring" it, was of course supernatural or in- 
spired. Is such a proceeding an ordination ? is it, by any con- 
struction, a basis for an ordination of the ordinary kind ? 

Doddridge (on Acts xvi. 3,) says, that after circumcising 
Timothy, at Lystra, "Paid laid his hands upon him, and set 
him apart to the ministerial office, conferring upon him extraor- 
dinary gifts, (2 Tim. i. 6,) which were attended with prophe- 
cies of his eminent future usefulness. (1 Tim. i. 18; iv. 14.") 
Whether Doddridge speaks in another tone, in his remarks on 

1 Tim. iv. 14. and 2 Tim. i. 6, we do not inquire. We use his 
authority for doubts only in the case — if it amounts to contra- 
diction, so much more is the Presbyterian plea doubtful. 

Macknight says, on the text in dispute — " The word x a P lG i ia 
commonly denotes the spiritual gifts conferred on believers in 
the first age, whether by an immediate illapse of the Holy Ghost, 
or by the imposition of the Apostles' hands :" by " spiritual gifts" 
he mean's miraculous powers; and he ascribes the endowment 
to the hands of "apostles." He adds, "Since it appears from 

2 Tim. i. 6, that the Apostle by the imposition of his own hands 
conferred on Timothy the spiritual gift here mentioned, we must 
suppose that the eldership at Lystra laid their hands on him 
only to show their concurrence with the Apostle in setting 
Timothy apart to the ministry by prayer; in the same manner 
as the prophets at Antioch, by the command of the Holy Ghost, 
separated Paul and Barnabas by prayer to the work to which 
they were appointed." Dr. Macknight. it seems, does not speak 
so slightingly of "concurrence" as the reviewer does — " for con- 
currence, for form, for nothing I " A very short argument — but 
a very brittle one ! 

Adam Clarke, who thinks that both gifts and office are referred 
to in the passage before us, says there were two impositions of 
hands on Timothy, though on the same occasion ; that by Paul, 
and that by the "presbytery." On this construction, a presby- 
tery ought not to lay on hands, unless there be an apostle present 
to do the same act, either before or after theirs is performed. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 195 

Some Presbyterians, as Dr. Campbell and Dr. Wilson, reject 
the class of ruling-elders, and deem a " presbytery" to be 
formed without them. Others, as Calvin and Dr. Miller, are 
strenuous advocates for that office, and make them an integral 
part of the " presbvtery ;" as does also the Presbyterian Church 
in this country. Now, who can say, in such a disagreement of 
jrreat divines — who can say, with reasonable certainty, or with 
sufficient probability, how, on Non-episcopal principles, the 
"presbytery" of the text before us must have been constituted? 

Again: Some writers, our Rev. opponent for example, say 
that Paul belonged to this " presbytery," or took part with them 
in the ordination. Others, as Matthew Henry, say that the 
"presbytery" alone ordained, and that Paul did not belong to it, 
but gave only an extraordinary spiritual gift by the imposition of 
his hands. What are we to make of a "presbytery" of which 
such contradictory notions are entertained ? 

Other Presbyterian writers, as the late Dr. Wilson, are of 
opinion that in the very outset of the Church, there were no 
ordained ministers, but only apostles, evangelists, prophets, &c, 
endowed with extraordinary gifts. In conformity with this 
theory, Dr. Wilson doubts whether the verse before us alludes 
to ordination, (p. 273.) 

Add to these Presbyterian or Non-episcopal sources of doubt 
concerning the meaning of this word and the passage containing 
it — =-alI our modern quotations but one are from that side of the 
question — add to them the many Episcopal writers who regard 
the "presbytery" as having consisted of apostles, of bishops 
proper, or of elders with one or more apostles — or, wno hold 
ihat Paul alone ordained, while the elders merely gave consent 
— or, who do not allow that this laying on of hands was for 
ordination — add Ignatius, who says, (Phil. 5,) "fleeing to the 
Apostles as to the 'presbytery of the Church," showing that the 
word in dispute may be applied to a body of apostles only — add 
Chrysostom, who says, on the passage, " by eldership (pres- 
bytery) he means not presbyters, but bishops, for presbyters did 
not ordain bishops" — add Theodore!, who says that the minis- 
ters who with Paul consecrated Timothy were " those who were 
vouchsafed the favor to be apostles," or the gift of the apostleship 
— add, if we may go to later fathers, (Ecumenius and Theophy- 
lact, who say, "presbytery, that is bishops"* — add all these 
further sources of doubt, and what but doubt can be made of the 
"solitary text !" (See further the note below.f) 

! * The three last quotations are taken from Hammond on Acts xi. 30. 

t We add, in full, the remarks on npeafivrepiov from the Critica Sacra of Sir 
Edward Leigh : He was, says Lempriere, -a member of the Long Parliament, and 
of the Assembly of Divines, and also a parliamentary general :" he dedicates his 
work to the Westornster Assembly of Divines. He thus writes on the word, — 
" Upe&fivrtpiov, Senior urn ordo, Presbyterium. It signifieth a company of elders. 
PresbyteHum in Latin is used bv Cyprian, lib. 3. epist. 11. and I. 2. epist. 8 and 10, 
for a consistory of elders. 1 Tim. iv. 14. [Vide Beza.] It doth signify (saitli, 
one) not only a company of presbyters, but also the office and function of a presbyter... 



196 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

7. Let the only scriptural illustrations of the word " presby- 
tery y - be taken into consideration. It occurs three times in the 
New Testament ; and in both the cases besides the one before us, 
it is applied to the Jewish elders or rulers — " The presbytery of 
the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together," 
(Luke xxii. 66 ;) " The high priest doth bear me witness, and all 
the presbytery." (Acts xxii. 5.) The Jewish presbytery was 
"a body distinguished from the priests," says Dr. Miller : laymen 
belonged to it — perhaps it was made up of laymen. What then 
was the Christian presbytery mentioned by Paul ? was it clerical, 
or lay, or a mixture? Scripture decides not. If the Jewish 
presbytery was u distinguished from the priesthood," is it not a 
fair inference, that the Christian presbytery was ! distinguished 
from the ministry?' and then, if the passage be relied on for the 
authority to ordain, the Independents triumph over the Presby- 
terians. If the word "presbyter." as occurring in Scripture, 
be brought to the aid of the word " presbytery." then a seat in 
that body is given to apostles, to presbyter-bishops, to deacons 
probably, and some say to ruling elders; while yet Scripture 
does not declare whether only one or more, or all these kinds of 
presbyters, were necessary to constitute the body — it leaves the 



Hieronymus, Ambros'ms, Primasius, Haimo, Lyranus dicunt, Presbyterium hie est 
dignitas vel officium Presbyterii: quibus et Calvinus adstipulatur. Chrysostomus, 
et Theodoretus, et qui horum vestigiis institeruut, GEcumenius ac Theophylactus, 
per Presbyteriii m non nisi episcopos [none but bishops] intelligunL Ifcique si demus 
(inquit Seultetus in locum) -rrpccfivTspiov hie coetum sen io nun signiheare, erunt 
seniorcs illi, ApostoH, Hvangelistce, Prophetm, et Ixxii. discipuli, quos Scriptural 
docentde Presbyteriis fuisse in prima ecclesia ; non laid seniores, quorum scriptura 
nusquutn meminit, et qui hoc ipso loco a presbyterio, velut ex professo, excluduntut\ 
Presbyterium enim hoc munus ministris ordinandis imposuit. Nulli autem laicorum 
seniorum manus ministris imposuerunt: Hoc postremo habendum; solos pastores 
maims imposuisse ministris. Calvinus* li. 4. JnstiL oa. 3. So Jerome and Anselm 
expound Presbyterium by Presbyteratus, or Episcopatus, that is, the office of a 
priest or bishop : and Lyia,Presbyteiium est dignitas vel officium presbyteri. Yea, 
their own Rheinists confess so much, in that they translate the word presbyterium 
in this place, priesthood, which doth not signify a company of priests, but the office 
and order of a priest. Yet others seem to be of a contrary opinion." — Here, surely, 
is an unexceptionable witness ; he was " learned," he was " a violent Presbyterian," 
and both politically and ecclesiastically connected with the interests of that denomi- 
nation. What says he of the doubtful word? it means 'seniorum ordo/ the degree 
or order of elders, as well as a ' compiny ' of them ; and he gives as fuil authority, 
at least, for the former sense, as for the latter. It means also the office of a bishop, 
and a body of bishops ; good authorities being adduced for these significations also. 
What, now, must we think of Dr. Miller, when he says that Calvin, fox interpreting 
the word of office, " deserves nothing but ridicule?" (p. 58. la* edit.) What shall 
we think of Mr. Barnes, when he says, " The word is fixed m its meaning, in 
the usage of the Church?" If ever there was a word preeminently not fixed in its 
meaning, TrpecrfivTspiov is such a word. Nay. we may affirm that its meaning 
cannot now be fixed — for the authority for each of the several meanings presented 
in this extract, is too good to be set aside, and neither of them can be preferred, 
without the shedding of new light on the subject. The Presbyterian construction 
has only the merest chance of being the true one. For ourselves, we prefer the 
analogy of the " transaction" in this passage with that in Acts xiii. : this scriptural 
analogy appears to us stronger than all the arguments adduced for the other inter- 
pretations. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 197 

text, the "lonely" text, to the conflicting claims of Episcopa- 
lians, Presbyterians, and the advocates of lay ordination. 

Such, upon all these considerations, is the hopeless predica- 
ment of the passage before us. 

Yet on such a text Mr. Barnes rests his argument for the 
scriptural authority of Presbyterian ordination; on this text 
alone, for he does not support it, on the point of ordination, by 
any other scriptures. Nay, we see not that he has any scrip- 
tures to support it with ; for, in his first Review, he acknowledges 
that " the transaction at Antioch was not a Presbyterian ordina- 
tion ;" and if he go to the cases of Matthias, the seven deacons, 
and the " elders in every church," he will find them all the work 
of apostles, not of elders. In this one passage then, "the laying 
*on of the hands of the presbytery," we have not merely the 
only passage he offers, but the only one he can offer. W ill he 
tell us then what xpecfivrepiov in this passage means? will he tell 
us, on such principles and on such authority as will scatter 
reasonable doubt, and compel the acquiescence of all candid and 
honest minds ? No, he cannot. The grounds of uncertainty, as 
to its meaning, are too numerous, too rife even in his own. 
denomination, to admit of a concentration of opinion on the 
Presbyterian sense, or indeed on any one sense, of that Greek, 
word. We are right therefore, in deeming it to have referred 
to an inspired transaction, which, affords no rule of conduct to 
uninspired agents. 

Compare with these "shadows, clouds, and darkness," the 
Episcopal argument. That the Apostles ordained, all agree. 
That Timothy and Titus had the power to ordain, all agree. 
That the two latter had this power individually is clear, if proof 
to the contrary be not shown, for the epistles are directed to 
them individually. What is the proof to the contrary ? Nothing 
positive any where — nothing by inference in the epistle to 
Titus — and in those to Timothy, nothing but the very passage 
we have had before us, the meaning of which even Presbyterians 
cannot decide, and which of course affords no availing inference 
whatever. Timothy and Titus then had the ordaining power 
individually. Timothy was to have it "till the appearing of our 
Lord Jesus Christ," the end of the world; that is, such minis- 
ters as Timothy were to be perpetuated while the earthly Church 
should endure — what he had received of Paul was to be "com- 
mitted to faithful men" successively. Is there any flaw in this 
chain of proofs ? do any reasonable doubts obscure this argument 
from Scripture? No : we aver it to be as clear as any matter of 
doctrine or discipline drawn from that holy volume. This is 
enough for an inductive proof of Episcopal ordination. 

Add to it the total want of proof of Presbyterian ordination.. 
Where shall any proof of it be found ? In the " transaction at 
Antioch ?" Mr. Barnes gives it up ; the late Dr. Wilson gave it 
up ; Dr. Miller, if we understand his late Tract, (p. 12, 54,) gives, 
ii up ; the Review of our Tract in the Biblical Repertory wis 
17* 



198 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP 

silent concerning the paragraphs on that " transaction " which 
appeared to Mr. Barnes so '• conclusive." Will proof be sought 
in the passage " laying on of the hands of the presbytery?" it 
cannot be done, till it be determined what the passage means. 
Will it be looked for in the fact that a "plurality" (we take this 
word from Dr. Miller) ordained? the answer is, that in every 
recorded case of that sort, the ordainers were apostles, not mere 
presbyters.* This is all the scriptural proof, we believe, that 
Non-episcopalians claim for their ordinations : and what does it 
amount to? precisely nothing — their proof is no proof. 

The result is, that Episcopal ordination has the clear' authority 
of Scripture, and that Presbyterian ordination has no scriptural 
authority whatever. 

Because our Rev. reviewer finds no mention of persons in the- 
apostolical or Episcopal grade of the ministry, in the epistles to 
the Philippians and the Thessalonians, he concludes that those 
churches, or "groups" of churches, were organized without 
them, under presbyter-bishops only. He might as well argue, 
that, because no ministers of any kind (except false teachers) 
are mentioned in the first epistle of John, the Christians for 
whom it was intended had none. Besides, there are those 
who think the Philippians had an apostle, Epaphroditus — and 
who include such an officer among those in the Church at 
Thessalonica who were " over them in the Lord." But we may 
grant the reviewer all he asks, and he will yet gain nothing. It 
is not inconsistent with the Episcopal scheme that new churches, 
or districts of churches, be for awhile without bishops; all our 
churches in this country were without them till after the Revolu- 
tion, their connexion with the bishop of London being little 
more than nominal, and without ecclesiastical authorization: 
and in several of our new States and Territories now, there are 
churches without bishops, not being numerous enough, as yet, 
to elect canonically such officers. Such districts have only, like 
the "group" of churches in or near Philippi, according to the 
reviewer, presbyter-bishops and deacons. They will obtain 
each an apostle-bishop in due season, however, as Philippi 
unquestionably did, if without one at the time the epistle was 
written. 

And as to the alleged incongruity of elders, the " presbytery," 
" designating the bishop of Ephesus to his field of labor," what 
force is there in the objection ? Do not Presbyterian laity desig- 
nate, in the first instance, to his field of labor, a pastor elect, or 
a pastor ordained coming from some other parish or situation ? 
Do not our " elders and brethren," in convention, do the same 
for a bishop elect ? Nay, our " elders and brethren" in Illinois 
have " appointed," have " designated to his field of labor," a 



* If these parts of Scripture are to be employed against us, it should be to the 
pomt that a " plurality" of bishops ought to act in all ordinations. Our reply would 
then be, thai Timothy and Titus, individually, had the ordaining power 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCPJPTURE. 199 

bishop consecrated — Bishop Chase. And in England, where 
translations are allowed, the "brethren and elders," the king 
and the dean and chapter, are continually thus "designating" 
consecrated bishops to fields in which they did not labor before. 
We have now answered all that we deem material in the 
argument of our estimable opponent. And we will not deem 
him less estimable for an inadvertence into which he has fallen 
at the close of his work. When we quoted an encomium on 
our Church from his first review, we omitted his kind hope 
that she would be " the warm friend of revivals, and would con- 
secrate her wealth and power to the work of a perpetual aggres- 
sion on the territories of sin and death." The reviewer inti- 
mates that this omission of ours "evinced a degree of coldness 
toward the great work of converting the world," and that we were 
" alarmed at the word revivals." Now, we submit to the better 
judgment of our Rev. friend, whether he has not transcended 
his fair rights — whether our omission only of certain topics is 
justly construed into an aversion to them — whether a contro- 
vertist has the privilege of calling out his opponent on subjects 
foreign to the debate, and of which he says nothing — in shorty 
whether this is not an " extraneous consideration," and one 
peculiarly improper, as having an ad captandum appearance, 
in a discussion on the scriptural arguments concerning Episco- 
pacy ? Our opinions on the subject of " converting the world " 
have been published, and pretty widely circulated. And when 
the word " revivals " shall be authoritatively defined, we will- 
say whether we are friendly to them or not. At present, the 
term includes proceedings of the most unruly and fanatical 
sort, as well as the periods of a gentler movement in piety, 
which never, we believe, had this name till of late years. And 
until the former are wholly discarded from the current defini- 
tion, we cannot sanction the word " revivals." We are sure 
our Rev. friend will see that he has obliged us to make a gra- 
tuitous explanation. 

But we consign this mistake to oblivion, and assure him of 
our high estimate of his piety, talents, and honorable principles. 
That his reviews have not been more successful, is owing to 
the infelicity of the cause they would support — infelicity, we 
say, for we believe that in the controversies on the constitu- 
tion of the ministry, Episcopalians have invariably been the 
gainers. 

H. U. O. 

P. S.— We find that the Biblical Repertory joins Mr. Barnes 
in the opinion that Timothy was not at Philippi at the time of 
the persecution. Beyond these two writers, we know of none 
who even intimate such a view of the case. 

H. U. O. 



From the Biblical Repertory. 

REVIEW. 



Episcopacy Tested by Scripture. By the Right Rev. Henry TJ.Onder- 
donk, D. D., Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12mo. pp. 46. 1831. 

We think some apology to our readers will be considered as 
proper, not for being so tardy in our notice of this pamphlet, 
but for noticing it at all. It is not customary, we suppose, to 
review ''Tracts;" not merely because of their number, and their 
diminutive and fugitive character; but also because, when they 
are decisively sectarian in their nature, they are regarded as 
meant for circulation only among the members of the particular 
sect for whose benefit they are intended. The history of this 
Tract, however, is somewhat peculiar. It was first published as 
an article in a periodical entitled, the " Protestant Episcopalian," 
without a name. Soon afterward a large number of extra 
copies were stricken off from the press of that work, and exten- 
sively circulated; but still without a name. In this fornij copy 
after copy was sent to us by mail, which convinced us that 
something more was intended than to inform and satisfy Epis- 
copalians. In a short time it came forth from the Protestant 
Episcopal Press in New- York, as a formal tract, with the name 
of the writer ; and was soon followed by intimations from 
various quarters, that it was deemed conclusively to establish 
the divine right of Episcopacy ; nay, that it was unanswerable. 
The whole Presbyterian Church, in no very indirect form, was 
challenged to reply. At length something like a tone of exuh% 
ing sarcasm was publicly indulged. An answer was again and 
again called for, accompanied with more than insinuations that 
the silence of Presbyterians in regard to this Tract, must be 
interpreted as a virtual acknowledgment that they felt them- 
selves refuted and overcome. 

On the undignified and offensive aspect of this conduct, we 
do not think proper to multiply remarks. Such puerile exulta- 
tion is the language of weakness, not of strength. It is very 
evident that those who indulged it were acquainted with only 
one side of the controversy. We are far, however, from ascribr 
ing this conduct to Bishop Onderdonk himself. We have no 
doubt he would disdain it. 

The simple truth is, that we never gave this Tract even* a 
cursory perusal, until within the last twenty-four hours. Al- 
though copy after copy was poured upon us by the mail, in all 
the stages of its publication ; yet, after glancing at a page here 

c 200 ) 



REVIEW — EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 201 

and there, to the amount of a fourth, or, at most, a third part of 
its contents, and finding not a thought or an illustration with 
which we had not been made familiar by other writers, we 
closed the pamphlet under the deliberate impression that it did 
not call for any public notice. It never occurred to us as possible 
that any well-informed Presbyterian or Episcopalian could con- 
sider this manual as placing the claims of prelacy on any other 
or firmer ground than that on which it was regarded as resting 
before. And, as we had repeatedly said in preceding numbers 
of our work, what we thought sufficient to discredit these claims, 
with all impartial readers, we felt no disposition to renew a 
controversy on which we thought enough had been written ; 
especially when so many other subjects more nearly connected 
with the best interests of society, and the salvation of the soul, 
were urgently pressed upon our attention, and more than suffi- 
cient to fill our pages. 

These, most candidly, are our reasons for not having before 
taken any public notice of this manual. And our general esti- 
mate of its character would dispose us still to be silent. But as 
the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable charac- 
ter seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and 
louder; and as it is possible that some of our less-informed 
friends may misapprehend the reason of our silence, we have 
resolved to offer a few cursory remarks on the boasted produc- 
tion before us. 

And in the outset, we think proper to say, that, although the 
style of this Tract is, in general, circuitous, heavy and feeble ;— 
and although a single thought is not recognised' m the whole, 
which has not been, to say the least, quite as clearly and forci- 
bly presented by preceding writers ; yet it possesses sone 
characteristics which are worthy of high commendation. The 
author has avoided all indecorum and severity of remark. He 
writes like a scholar and a gentleman. He has resorted to no 
unbecoming language, or disingenuous arts. Every thing be- 
speaks a writer at home in his subject; qualified to arrange with 
some degree of skill the old and common-place matter which he. 
presents; and disposed to maintain his cause by fair reasoning, 
as he understands it, rather than by denunciation or acrimony. 
In these respects the manual before us is worthy of much 
praise. If all writers in favor of prelacy had maintained an 
equally inoffensive and respectful manner, it would have formed 
a much less revolting page than it does, in the history of eccle- 
siastical polemics. 

If there be a feature in this Tract which partakes in any 
measure of novelty, it is that the author should be willing to 
bring Episcopacy to the " test of Scripture." His predeces- 
sors have seldom ventured to risk this. It has generally been 
their policy to pass in a very cursory manner over the testimony 
drawn from the inspired writings, and to place their chief reli- 
ance on that of the " fathers." And even when the question 
18 



202 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

was asked, "What saith the Scripture?" it was seldom the 
inspired oracle alone that was consulted ; but Scripture inter- 
preted, commented upon, and modified by human authority.. 
We are glad to see the appeal made, and for once, professedly 
confined to the Word of God. When fairly brought to this test, 
we cannot doubt the issue among all impartial judges. We are 
not merely willing, then, but insist that the whole subject shall 
be brought and decided before this tribunal. The Bible con- 
tains the religion of Protestants. It is the only infallible rule of 
faith and practice. By this great rule we must try the fathers 
themselves. And whatever, in their writings, is not supported 
by the Bible, we are bound to reject without hesitation. 

Before Bishop Onderdonk proceeds to array in> form the 
testimony of Scripture in favor of Episcopacy, he attempts to 
dispose of what he calls certain " extraneous questions and 
difficulties, and to show either their fallacy or irrelevancy." We 
are quite willing that these "questions and difficulties" should 
be, for the present, put out of view. Not because we think 
them really either irrelevant or unimportant; but because we 
do not think them essential; and because we are disposed to 
disembarrass the main question as much as possible, and to 
keep the mind of every reader firmly fixed on the position of 
the writer before us, that Episcopacy is taught in the Bible. 
To this position, therefore, let us address ourselves with all 
candor and impartiality. 

Bishop Onderdonk, then, maintains, that the Gospel ministry- 
was, by Divine authority, "established in three orders, called, 
€ver since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters or elders, and 
deacons ; of which the highest only — that is, bishops — has a 
right to ordain and confirm," &e. In opposition to this claim,. 
Presbyterians maintain, that, by Divine authority, the Gospel 
ministry was established in a single order; that all ministers in 
the apostolic Church, who were authorized to preach the Gos- 
pel, and administer the Christian sacraments, were empowered 
to perform the highest functions of the sacred office. We differ, 
then, in regard to the Christian ministry, in two respects, from 
our Episcopal brethren. In theirs* place, we confidently deny 
that there is the least foundation in Scripture for considering 
deacons as an order of Gospel ministers at all. And, in the 
second place, we as confidently assert that there is no authority 
whatever in the Word of God for any u order" of ministers 
above that of ordinary pastors. 

I. On theirs* of these points it is not our intention to dwell 
long. Not merely because Bishop Onderdonk says little about 
it; but also because if the second point, viz. that which relates 
to the claim of the bishop, or alleged highest order, cannot be 
sustained — as we are very sure it cannot — the claim of the dea- 
con to a share in the evangelical ministry, as one of " three 
orders," will fall of course. We say, then, that the alleged claim 
of the deacon^ in the Episcopal Church, to a place as one of the 



TESTED BV SCRIPTURE. 203 

w ■■orders of clergy " — has no foundation whatever in the Word of 
God. To establish this, nothing more is necessary than to 
glance at the inspired record, in Acts vi. 1-7, where the original 
appointment, and the duties of deacons, are explicitly and plainly 
stated. "In those days, when the number of the disciples was 
multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the 
Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily 
ministrations. Then the twelve called the multitude of the dis- 
ciples unto them, and said, ' It is not meet that we should leave 
the Word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look 
ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and 
wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we 

WILL GIVE OURSELVES CONTINUALLY TO PRAYER, AND TO THE MINIS- 
TRY of the word.' And the saying pleased the whole multi- 
tude ; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the 
Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and 
Tiinon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a .proselyte of Antioch; 
whom they set before the Apostles ; and when they had prayed, 
they laid their hands on them." 

This is the first and the on ly account in the whole New Tes- 
tament of the original appointment of deacons, and the only 
statement which we find of their appropriate duties! And we 
appeal to every candid reader whether it affords the least coun- 
tenance to the idea that the deaconship was then an office 
which had any thing to do with preaching and baptizing; in 
other words, whether it was an office at all devoted to the spi- 
ritual duties of the sanctuary? Really, if such an idea had not 
been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as 
possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking man. 
Indeed, if the whole passage had been constructed upon the 
distinct plan of precluding the possibility of such an interpreta- 
tion, it is difficult to conceive how such a design could have 
been more clearly manifest. The Apostles say, " It is not meet 
that we should leave the word of God — (that is, evidently, — 
leave preaching) — and serve tables; wherefore, look ye out 
seven men, &c, whom we may appoint over this eusiness; 
(that is, this business of serving tables,) and we will give our- 
selves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Can any 
man who is not blindly wedded to a system, consider this pas- 
sage as importing that deacons were appointed to be preachers 
of the word? Nay, is it not expressly stated that the Aposiles 
considered the duties of this office as of such a nature, that 
their undertaking to fulfil them would compel them to leave 
preaching, and devote themselves to the care of money tables? 

It militates nothing against this plain statement of the inspired 
historian, that he represents Stephen, one of these deacons, as 
soon after his appointment, defending himself with great power 
before the Jewish council; and Philip, another of them, em- 
ployed in a year or two after his ordination to the deaconship, 
preaching and baptizing in Samaria. With respect to Stephen, 



204 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

it is not said, that he either preached or baptized. He simply 
replied to those who "disputed" with him, and defended him- 
self before the council by which he was arraigned. In all 
this, there was evidently nothing which any man might not do, 
in any age of the Church, without infringing ecclesiastical order. 
And as to Philip, when we read a few chapters onward in the 
same book, (Acts xxi. 8,) we find him spoken of as "Philip the 
evangelist, who was one of the seven." Here, then, we find 
precisely the same title given to this man that was afterward 
given to Timothy. (2 Tim. iv. 6.) From which we may confi- 
dently infer, that, having " used the office of a deacon well, 5 ' 
(1 Tim. iii. 13,) in the church of Jerusalem, and being found a 
man " full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," when he and his 
brethren were driven from that city, and were all "scattered 
abroad in consequence of the persecution which arose about his 
colleague, Stephen," he was invested with a new office, and sent 
forth to minister in various parts of the country a» an "evange- 
list." At any rate, nothing is plainer than that the " ministry 
of the word " made no part of the deacon's office, as laid down 
by the Apostles ; and as he is soon afterward introduced to us as 
bearing the office of an "evangelist," the appropriate function 
of which we know was preaching the Gospel, we are warranted 
in concluding that he Was set apart to the latter office before he 
went forth to engage in public preaching. In short, until it 
can be proved that Philip preached and baptized as a deacon, 
and not as an evangelist, — which we are perfectly sure never 
can be proved — the allegation, that the apostolic deacons were 
preachers, is perfectly destitute of scriptural support; nay, 
directly opposed to the scriptural account of the institution of 
their office. 

Accordingly, when in the subsequent parts of the New Testa- 
ment there is a reference to the proper qualifications for the 
deacons' office, no intimation is given that, in the candidates for 
that office, the gifts requisite for public instruction were re- 
ceived. We are told that it was necessary that those who bore 
this office should be sober, grave, faithful in all things, ruling 
their own houses well, sound in the faith, &c, but not a word 
of their being " apt to teach," as was expressly demanded of 
all who were candidates for " ministering in the word and 
doctrine." 

It is plain, then, that " the order of deacons," as one of the 
"three orders of clergy," for which our Episcopal brethren 
contend, cannot stand the test of Scripture. It must, undoubt- 
edly, be given up, if we would be governed by the word of God. 
Deacons there undoubtedly were in the apostolic Church ; but 
they were evidently curators of the poor, and attendants on the 
tables of the Church ; precisely such as were found in the 
Jewish synagogues, before the coming of Christ, and such as 
are found in all completely organized Presbyterian churches at 
the present day. And this continued to be the nature of the 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 205 

office for several hundred years after the apostolic age. But 
when a spirit of carnal ambition began to reign in the Church, 
and led ecclesiastical men to aspire and encroach, deacons 
invaded the province of preachers, and committed to "sub- 
deacons" the burden of their primitive duties.* 

Having thus being compelled to set aside one "order" of 
Episcopal clergymen, when " tested by Scripture," we now 
proceed. 

II. To the second point insisted on by the author of this 
Tract, and which, indeed, evidently forms his main object, viz. 
that we are taught in Scripture, that in the apostolic Church, 
there was a grade of ministers of the Gospel superior to the 
ordinary pastors; above common ministers of the word and 
sacraments; that ministers of this grade were alone empowered 
to ordain, to confirm, and to govern the Church ;— and that 
there is evidence in Scripture that this arrangement was in- 
tended to be permanent Such is the confident allegation of 
Bishop Onderdonk; and he professes an entke willingness to 
rest this Episcopal claim on scriptural testimony alone. It is 
hoped that our readers will bear this in mind., and not suffer 



* The following extracts from early writers plainly show, not only that the 
"deacon's office was,* originally, what we have above represented, but that this con 
turned to be the case for several centuries. Hernias, one of the apostolical fathers, 
iu his Similitude, 9, 27, tells us that "of such as believed, some were set over 
inferior functions, or services, being intrusted with the care of the poor and 
widows." Origen, iTmct 16, in Matt.) says; "These deacons preside over the 
meney-tables cf the Church." And again, "The deacons who do not manage 
well the money of the Cl-urch committed to their care, but act a frandulent part, and 
dispense it. not according to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves;— 
these act the part, of money- changers, and keepers of those tables which our Lord over- 
turned. For the deacons were appointed to preside over the tables of the Church, a< 
tee are taught in the Acts of the Apostles-." Cyprian-, {Epist. 52,) speaks of a certain 
deacon who had been deposed from his " sacred deaconship on account of his fraudu 
lent and sacrilegious misapplication of the Church's money to his own private use; 
and for his denial of the widows' and orphans' pledges deposited with him." 
And, in another place, {Epist. 3, ad Rogatianum,) as a proof that his view 
of this office is not misapprehended, he refers the appointment of the first deacon- 
to the choice and ordination at Jerusalem, as already recited. Ambrose, in speak- 
ing of the fourth century, the time in which he lived, {Comment, in Ephes. iv.) 
says, "The deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostom, who lived in the 
same century, in his commentary on Acts vi. remarks, that " the deacons had 
need of great wisdom, although the preaching of the Gospel was not committed to 
them;" and observes further, that it is absurd to suppose that they should have 
both the offices of preaching and taking care of the poor committed to them, 
seeing it is impossible for them to discharge both functions adequately. Jeromt , 
in his letter to Evagrius, calls deacons " ministers of tables a?id widows.' 
And in the Apostolical Constitutions, which, though undoubtedly spurious u> 
an apostolical work, may probably be referred to the fourth or fifth century, it is 
declared, (Lib. viii. cap. 28.) " It is not lawful for the deacons to baptize or to admi 
nister the eucharist, or to pronounce the greater or smaller benediction." Other 
citations, to the same amount, might easily be produced. But it is unnecessary. 
The above furnish a clear indication of the nature of the deacon's office in the 
primitive Church*. Yet as this testimony is not that of Scripture, it has not 
been thought proper to embrace it in the body of our review, but to present if 
in this form, that it may be estimated for what k> is worth. And surely, on the 
principles of our Episcopal brethren, it is worth much. 

18 



206 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

themselves for a moment to forget that our appeal is to the 
Bible, and to the Bible only. Does the Bible, then, counte- 
nance the claim that prelates, or an order of ministers superior 
to ordinary pastors, and having alone a right to ordain, &c. 
were established by Divine appointment in the aposlolic age, 
and intended to be a permanent order in the Christian Church? 
The author of the Tract before us maintains the affirmative. 
We are constrained with confidence to take the negative side, 
and to the Scriptures we make our appeal. 

Bishop Onderdonk sets out in his argument with acknowledg- 
ing that "the name bishop, which now (among Episcopalians) 
designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated 
to that office in Scripture. That name, he confesses, is there 
always given to the middle order of presbyters; and all that we 
read in the New Testament concerning ' bishops, 5 (including, of 
course, the words 'overseers' and 'oversight,' which have the 
same derivation) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle 
grade. The highest grade is there found in those called 'apos- 
tles.' And it was after the apostolic age that the name 
* bishop 5 was taken from the second order, and appropriated 
to the first. In short, the doctrine of this Tract is, that in the 
days of the Apostles, the title of bishop was applied to presby- 
ters, that is, to ordinary pastors, or parish ministers, and to 
them alone; that during this time the Apostles were the prelates 
of the Church ; that the Apostles aldne, while they lived, were 
invested with the power of ordination ; that when they died, 
they were succeeded in their pre-eminent rank by ministers of 
a corresponding grade; that this superior class of ministers, 
who were the true and only successors of the Apostles, thought 
proper to drop the name of '-apostles," (whether through 
modesty or policy the author does not say,) and to assume that 
of "bishop," which had before belonged to common pastors. 
All this, we are given to understand, can be demonstrated from 
Scripture.* 

In regard to the first step in this train of allegations — for we 
will not call it argument — we entirely agree with Dr. Onderdonk. 



* It is worthy of notice that the author of this Tract differs widely in the ground 
which he assumes from one of the most learned and able advocates of Episcopacy 
that ever lived. We refer to the celebrated Dr. Henry Hammond, undoubtedly 
one of the most, erudite and able divines of the Church of England that lived 
in tho seventeenth century,, and at least equal in learning and talent to any bishop 
now on the stage. He maintained, in direct opposition to Bishop Onderdonk, that 
all the persons" denominated bishops and presbyters in the New Testament, (the 
names being then common,) were prelates or bishops, properly so called ; and that 
the second order, that of presbyters, was not instituted until after the apostolic age. 
Dr. Hammond appears to have been just as confident that his doctrine was 
taught in Scripture as our author can be that the opposite to it is there found. 
Which of these prelatical champions shall we believe? " Who shall decide when 
doctors disagree?" We are persuaded that the spirit of the New Testament 
frowns equally upon both. In the meanwhile, it appears that our Episcopal 
friends are not agreed in the ground which they take for the support of their 
cause. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 207 

Nothing can be plainer than that whenever the title of "bishop" 
is applied in the New Testament to Gospel ministers, it designates 
ordinary pastors. A scriptural bishop was the spiritual teacher 
and guide, or " overseer," of a particular flock ; and the same 
men were called "elders," or " presbyters," and "bishops" inter- 
changeably, the names being common. This Dr. Onderdonk 
concedes, and we have no doubt with entire correctness. But 
in all the succeeding steps of his course, we have quite as little 
doubt that he proceeds without the smallest support from Scrip- 
ture ; nay, in direct opposition to the whole spirit and scope of 
the New Testament. 

This writer contends — and it is essential to his cause that he 
be able to show — that while the Apostles lived they bore a supe- 
rior ecclesiastical rank, and were endowed with ecclesiastical 
rights superior to other ministers; that, in particular, the right 
of ordaining was confined to them ; and that, when their ministry 
terminated, they left this pre-eminent rank, and these peculiar 
rights, to certain prelates, who were their successors in power 
and pre-eminence. Now the fact is, that all these points, though 
brought forward with some show, and even parade of argument, 
are wholly without support from Scripture, and have not one of 
them been made out by our author. It is not denied, indeed, 
that the Apostles bore a peculiar character, and had extraordi- 
nary powers and prerogatives imparted to them, adapted to the 
peculiar circumstances in which they were placed. For, until 
the canon of the New Testament was completed, they might be 
said, to a certain extent, to supply its place, and by inspiration 
and the exercise of miraculous powers, to be, in a peculiar sense, 
the authorized leaders and guides of the primitive Church. " The 
apostolic office" — says Dr. Barrow, universally known to be an 
eminent Episcopal divine — "as such, was personal and tempo- 
rary ; and, therefore, according to its nature and design, not 
successive, nor communicable to others, in perpetual descendence 
from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary j 
conferred in a special manner ; designed for special purposes ; 
discharged by special aids; endowed with special privileges^ 
as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, and founding 
of churches. To that office it was requisite that the person 
should have an immediate designation and commission from 
God; that he should be endowed with miraculous gifts and 
graces; that he should be able, according to his discretion, to 
impart spiritual gifts; and that he should govern in an absolute 
manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to which he 
might appeal. Now such an office, consisting of so many extra- 
ordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which were requisite 
for the foundation of the Church, was not designed to continue 
by derivation ; for it contained in it divers things, which appa- 
rently were not communicated, and which no man without gross 
imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to himself." Pope's 
Supremacy, pp. 122, 123, N. Y, edition. Such was the judgment 



208 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

of this eminently learned and able Episcopalian, concerning the 
foundation of the whole argument before us. There is not a 
shadow of support to be found in Scripture for the alleged 
transmission of the pre-eminent and peculiar powers of the 
Apostles to a set of ecclesiastical successors. As men endowed 
with the gifts of inspiration and miracles, and constituted th6 
infallible guides of the Church, until the New Testament canon 
should be completed ; their character and position were alto- 
gether extraordinary. They had no successors. Nor can the 
remotest hint be found in Scripture, that they had, or were ever 
intended to have, any such successors. 

But, considering the Apostles as ministers of Christ, empow- 
ered to preach the Gospel, to administer Christian sacraments, 
and to convert the world to Christ, they had successors : and 
these successors were, manifestly, all those who were empowered 
to preach the Gospel, and to dispense the sacramental seals of 
discipleship ; for in the final commission which the Saviour gave 
ro the Apostles, and which must be considered as embracing 
their final and highest functions, they are sent forth to disciple 
all nations, to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost : and it was in immediate connexion 
with the command to discharge these ordinary duties, that the 
promise which is considered as pointing to the ministerial succes- 
sion was given — " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world." If the friends of prelacy could produce even the 
semblance of testimony from Scripture, that the ordaining power 
is something more sacred and elevated than that of dispensing 
(he Gospel, and its sealing ordinances ; if they could produce 
xhe least hint from the New Testament that the powers possessed 
by the Apostles were, after their decease, divided ; and that while 
one class of ministers succeeded to their lower and more ordi- 
nary functions, another succeeded to certain pre-eminent rights 
and powers, not specified in their commission ; they would have 
^ome plausible ground on which to rest their cause. But every 
reader of the New Testament knows that there is not a syllable 
ihere which gives the most distant intimation of either of these 
alleged facts. On the contrary, the evidence against them is 
ample and decisive. 

Suppose, for argument's sake, that a pastor of the Presbyterian 
Church were sent to China or Japan to preach the Gospel, and, 
if successful, to organize churches, agreeably to his views of 
truth and order. Suppose it not possible to send more than 
one, and that he were invested with power by the proper 
authority, in this forming state of things, to ordain ministers, 
and perform every ecclesiastical act necessary to complete a 
Christian organization. Would this man be considered, by any 
rational inquirer, as clothed with a new office, or as elevated to a 
peculiar or separate " order of clergy ? " Surely not. He would 
be considered simply as an " evangelist," invested with special 
powers from the necessity of the case. And when the churches 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 209 

organized by him were prepared for a regular and mature Pres- 
byterian arrangement, would any be so absurd as to imagine 
that the ministers ordained by him were his u successors " in 
regard to the special commission and powers under which he 
had acted? Such an idea would be too preposterous to be enter- 
tained by any one. They would be simply his successors in 
respect to his original and ordinary powers; and every thing 
connected with his extraordinary delegation would terminate 
with the extraordinary circumstances which gave it birth. Ho 
would transmit, of course, to those ordained by him, nothing 
more than that simple office which he bore anterior to his 
peculiar mission. 

Thus it was with the Apostles. Their commission, as stated 
with great particularity by the evangelists, empowered them to 
preach, to baptize, to disciple all nations, and to teach them to 
observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded. All 
other permanent powers were included in these ; for there are 
none others mentioned. All ministers of the Gospel bear this 
commission. When the Apostles left the world, their inspira- 
tion, their miracles, their prerogative of guiding the churches 
by infallible leaching— in a word, the extraordinary character 
with which they were invested, died with them, and all that 
they transmitted was that which was embraced in their commis- 
sion. That they did not transmit a large and very prominent 
part of their extraordinary powers, Episcopalians themselves 
acknowledge. We know not that any modern Protestant bish- 
ops claim to be inspired, to have the power of working miracles, 
or of authoritatively prescribing the will of Christ to the Church, 
in place of the New Testament. All these adjuncts or annexa- 
tions to their general office, constituting them apostles, in the 
strict sense of the word, our Episcopal brethren confess ceased 
when the last Apostle left the world. This was, no doubt, the 
case. Where, then, is the evidence of which these same bre- 
thren talk so much, of their transmitting the pre-eminence and 
superiority of their character to a class of superior successors ? 

Bishop Onderdonk, from the circumstance that he finds the 
"apostles and elders" frequently distinguished from each other 
in the New Testament history, takes for granted that they were 
thus distinguished, because the former were ministers of a supe- 
rior order or rank to the latter. He also supposes that he finds 
evidence in the New Testament, not only that the Apostles 
ordained, but that they alone had the power of ordination while 
they lived. Now, we will venture to say that there is not a sha- 
dow of evidence in favor of either of these allegations in the Word 
of God. As to the office of the apostles and elders or presbyters, 
it was undoubtedly the same in all its essential characteristics. 
Let at.y unprejudiced reader examine the commission given by 
our Lord to the twelve, and afterward to the seventy, and then 
say, whether grades of power, and diversities of clerical rank } 
are masked therein. Let him say whether it includes any thing 
18* 



210 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

(excepting the supernatural part of their powers) but what 
belongs to every minister of the Gospel. Authority to preach 
the Gospel, to administer sealing ordinances, and to make disci- 
ples of all to whom they are sent, formed the substance of the 
apostolical commission ; and the very same forms the essence 
of the commission of all regular ministers now. Our author, 
indeed, ventures to affirm, that the Apostles were not distin- 
guished from other ministers, while they lived — because they 
were appointed by Christ personally 5 nor because they had 
" seen the Lord" after his resurrection; nor because of their 
miraculous powers; but because they sustained a superior office. 
This, he says, " will not be questioned." We certainly, how- 
ever, do question it ; and are quite sure that he has not proved 
it, arid cannot prove it, from Scripture, or from any other credi- 
ble source of evidence. In fact, it may be said with truth, that 
we have nothing in the pamphlet hefore us, adduced in favor of 
this position, worth mentioning, but the simple affirmation of the 
writer, which, on such a subject, we beg leave to decline accept- 
ing as conclusive, 

The siinpje and plain truth of the case is this. The Apostles 
were all presbyters or elders. This, and this only, was their 
proper ecclesiastical office. Accordingly, the Apostle Peter 
speaks thus—" The elders which are among you J exhort, who 
am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and 
also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." Such was 
Peter, if he himself understood his office ;— an elder. But he 
was an inspired elder; an elder endowed with miraculous 
gifts ; an elder who had « witnessed the sufferings " and 
resurrection of Christ; an elder chosen to be one of the num 
ber who should preside over the forming and rising Church 
under its new economy, before its written body of instructions 
were prepared, and even to assist in preparing those instructions; 
and, for that purpose, inspired of God to counsel, guide, and 
instruct the churches for their permanent edification. Such 
were the Apostles generally. When they died, the inspiration* 
the miracles and the peculiar apostolical authority died with 
them, and they simply transmitted their office as elders or pres- 
byters to tjieir successors. All this is plainly to be gathered 
from the tenor of the New Testament; and when Bishop 
Qriderdonk undertakes to press the testimony of Scripture into 
the support of any other doctrine, he fails, in our opinion, most 
egregiously. 

Quite as little proof have we that the ordaining power was 
exercised by the Apostles alone, while they lived. Or rather, 
this position is still more directly opposed to abundant scriptural 
evidence. We know that it was not so. Timothy, and Titus, 
and Barnabas all ordained ; and yet they were none of them 
apostles, in the appropriate sense of that title. In order to sur- 
mount this difficulty, however, our author, with many others 
who have gone before him in this controversy, takes the liberty 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 211 

of supposing that Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silvanus, Andro- 
nicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, and others were all apostles, in the 
pre-eminent sense of the word, though confessedly not of the 
number of the twelve ; and that, therefore, when we read of any 
of these exercising the ordaining power, we are to consider it as 
falling in with the Episcopal claim, and as confirming the doc- 
trine of the Tract before us. We have always considered this 
plea as one of the forlorn hopes of our Episcopal brethren, and 
as much more adapted to expose than to aid their cause. And 
as wielded by our author, it certainly does not appear to more 
advantage, than in the hands of those from whom he borrowed 
it. It is well known to learned men that the original Greek 
word which we translate apostle, signifies a messenger, or one 
who is sent on any errand, either sacred or secular. It is well 
known, also, that it has, in the New Testament, a peculiar or 
appropriated, and a common signification ; and that its peculiar 
application is to that chosen band of men, who were endowed 
and sent in an extraordinary manner by Christ himself. Of 
the peculiar or restricted application of this title we need not 
select specific examples. They are numerous and well known. 
In this high and exclusive sense, we are expressly told it was 
confined to those who had "seen the Lord," and who were 
" witnesses of his sufferings and his resurrection." In this 
sense it was applied to the twelve, and afterward to Matthias, 
who was chosen to take the place of Jud^is, " who by transgres- 
sion fell." And, in the same specific meaning of the title, Paul 
was an apostle, who was made to " see the Lord," in a miracu- 
lous manner, and who was "chosen to be a witness unto all 
men of what he had seen and heard." Let any impartial man, 
who doubts whether this is the meaning of the title of apostle, in 
its primary and pre-eminent sense, as applied to those on whom 
our Lord himself bestowed it ; let him read the following scrip- 
tures, and he will no longer doubt. Matt. x. 1-6; Luke vL 
12-17; Acts i. 21, 22; Luke xxiv. 48 ; Acts xxii. 14, 15; Acts 
xxiii. 11 ; Acts xxvi. 16, together with many other parallel pas 
sages, which will readily occur to all who are familiar with the 
Bible. 

With this representation of the apostolie office, Dr. Barrow, 
the learned Episcopal divine before quoted, entirely agrees.. 
"To the office of an apostle," says he, " it was requisite that the 
person should have an immediate designation and commission 
from God ; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon for assert- 
ing his title to this office — " Paul, an apostle, not from men or by 
man." "Not by men,"saith St. Chrysostom ; "this is the property 
of the apostles." It was requisite that an apostle should be able 
to attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either 
immediately, as the twelve, or by evident consequences, as St 
Paul; thus St. Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias— "Where- 
fore of those men which have companied with us, must one be 
ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection ; " and, " Am I 



212 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

not," saith St. Paul, "an apostle? have I not seen the Lord? 
According to that of Ananias — ' The God of our fathers hath 
chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that just 
One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth ; for thou shalt 
bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." 
— Pope's Supremacy, p. 122. 

But the term apostle (airo<TTo\os) is also sometimes applied in 
the New Testament to men who were not thus immediately 
commissioned by Christ in an extraordinary manner, to be 
"witnesses of his sufferings and his resurrection ;" but who were 
simply messengers, sent on particular occasions to perform a 
certain service. This distinction between the official, and the 
lax or general sense of this term, the learned translators of our 
English Bible, though themselves zealous Episcopalians, seldom 
fail to recognise. Thus Paul, in writing to the Philippians, ii.25, 
says — " I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphro- 
ditus, my brother and companion in labor, but your messenger, 
(awoffroXos,) and he that ministered to my wants." Epaphroditus 
had been sent by the Philippians as a messenger, or bearer of 
their bounty to Paul. This we learn not only from the pas- 
sage just quoted, but also from chapter iv. 18, of the same epis- 
tle. Accordingly he is styled ''their messenger." Surely it 
would be preposterous to consider the original word as import- 
ing that he was an apostle in the official sense of that tertiu 
Again, the same Apostle, in designating certain brethren sent 
with Titus to bear the Church's bounty to Jerusalem, speaks 
of them thus—" Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my 
partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be 
inquired of, they are the messengers (axoaro\oi) of the churches, 
and the glory of Christ." Here the very same rule of inter- 
pretation applies; and accordingly so judged the pious translat- 
ors of our Bible; and therefore they rendered the word messen- 
gers, not " apostles." 

With regard to the alleged apostleship of Timothy and Silva- 
nus, it is equally unsupported. They are never called apostle9 
in a single instance in Scripture. It is true, the first epistle to 
the Thessalonians begins thus — "Paul, and Silvanus, and 
Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians," &c. ; and 
in the next chapter of the same epistle, the Apostle speaks thus — 
"Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, 
when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ." 
In this latter verse, the Apostle undoubtedly either speaks of 
himself in the plural number, which he often does ; or refers to 
some other of the Apostles, of whom the same might be said. 
That in using this language, he did not refer to Silvanus, or 
Timotheus, is plain, because, in a verse or two before, he says 
— still using the plural number—" We were shamefully entreated, 
as ye know, at Philippi," &c. When the Apostle was treated 
with so much violence at Philippi, certainly Timotheus was 
not with him. Besides, neither Silvanus nor Timotheus was " a 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 213 

witness" of the sufferings and resurrection of their Master. 
Neither of them was immediately commissioned by the Saviour 
himself, as the Apostles were : on the contrary, Timothy was 
ordained, agreeably to the simple apostolical practice, u with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery." And the Apostle 
Paul, in other places, while he speaks affectionately of his "son 
in the faith," at the same time mentions him in a manner which 
plainly evinces a marked distinction between his office and that 
of the apostleship. Take as an example, 2 Cor. i. 1 — " Paul, an 
apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." And, 
again, Colossians i. 1 — " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and 
Timothy our brother" Here we have the very same evidence 
of diversity of rank that our author deems so decisive when he 
finds mention made of apostles and elders. Surely the humble 
and affectionate Paul would not have spoken thus, if Timothy 
had possessed an equal right with himself to the title of "an 
apostle of Jesus Christ," in the official and appropriate sense 
of that title. 

The claim advanced in behalf of Andronicus and Junia,* as 
apostles, is not only unfounded, but really bordering on the 
ridiculous. The only testimony advanced in support of this 
claim, is the language of the Apostle Paul in the close of his 
Epistle to the Romans, xvi. 7 — " Salute Andronicus and Junia, 
my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among 
the Apostles." This passage would never have been thought of 
as admitting the construction which the friends of prelacy attach 
to it, had not their cause stood greatly in need of testimony. Its 
obvious and simple meaning is, that these persons were "held in 
high estimation by the Apostles ; " or were regarded by the Apos- 
tles as of note, or conspicuous among their friends. This is the 
general interpretation of intelligent and impartial commentators ; 
and more cannot be made of the passage, unless by those who 
resolve that it shall speak in favor of their cause. 

It is evident, then, that none of these persons were apostlesj 
in the official and restricted sense of that title; and as we 
know that Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus, ordained, it follows, 
inevitably, that the ordaining power was not confined to the 
Apostles while they lived ; and, of course, that this whole branch 
of our author's argument falls to the ground. Nothing can be 
plainer than that " pastors," " teachers," and " evangelists," even 

* There is some reason to believe that Junia, one of these persons whom Bishop 
Onderdonk has dubbed apostles, was a woman ! The name, as it stands in the 
original is 'lovviav, which has no article to indicate the gender, and which may 
come as well from 'lovvia, as from 'lovvia^. Father Calmct remarks — " St. Chry- 
sostom, Theophylact, and several others, take Andronicus for a man and Junia for 
a woman, perhaps his wife. The Greeks and Latins keep their festival, May 17th, 
as husband and icife." Rosenmueller's annotation on the passage is as follows — 
* f Kai lovviav. Q,uae virletnr fuisse uxor Andronici. Aliis Junias est nomen viri, 
pro Junius." What renders it more probable that Junia was a woman is, that a 
man and his wife, a man and his sister, and two other females, are undoubtedly 
saluted in the preceding and following verses of the same chapter. 



214 



REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 



while the Apostles lived, often officiated in ordinations — not 
merely as humble assistants, but as principals, in investing others 
with the sacred office. 

The manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to dispose 
of the plain record, that Timothy was set apart to his office, 
" with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," is one of 
the most singular examples of evasion and management that we 
remember ever to have seen. He is confident that the Apostle, 
when he says, (1 Tim. iv. 14,) " Neglect not the gift that is in 
thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on 
of the hands of the presbytery," has no reference to Timothy's 
ordination. Why ? For no other earthly reason, that we can 
perceive, than that this supposition would make against the 
Episcopal claim. He does not deny, indeed, that it may refer to 
that transaction ; but he says, "it cannot, at least, be proved to 
do so ;" and he chooses rather to consider it as " a separation of 
one, already in the ministry, to a particular field of duty." In- 
deed, his aversion to ordination by a " presbytery," is so 
determined and invincible, that, rather than admit that this 
passage refers to Timothy's ordination, he intimates his will- 
ingness to give up another passage, in which the Apostle (2 Tim. 
i. 6,) speaks of " the gift of God which was in Timothy by the 
putting on of his (Paul's) hands," as also having no reference 
to his ordination ! And he gravely remarks, that, " if it have 
not, then Timothy's ordination is nowhere specifically mentioned, 
but is to be inferred, as in other cases ; and, in this view, both 
these passages are unconnected with the controversy before us." 
The truth is, if these passages refer to different transactions, it 
is much more probable that the former refers to Timothy's 
ordination than the latter, simply because in every instance in 
which we find a specific account given of an ordination in the 
New Testament, there was a plurality of ordainers. But the 
probability is, that they refer to the same transaction, viz. the 
one ordination of Timothy; and that Paul presided in the 
" presbytery" when that ordination was performed, " laying on 
hands" with the rest of the brethren, which we know is every 
day done in our presbyteries, when, as is commonly the case, 
one of the older members presides, and takes the lead in impos- 
ing hands, and is the mouth of the body in the ordaining prayer. 

But even allowing that the Apostle* in that passage in which 
he speaks of the " laying on of the hands of the presbytery," 
refers to Timothy's ordination, still, our author insists that no 
argument favorable to presbytery can be drawn from this con- 
fession.^ The word (TipcePvTsptov) rendered "presbytery," he 
alleges way mean — not a body of presbyters, hut the office of 
the presbyterate, or presbyter ship itself. So that he would 
propose to translate the passage thus — " with the laying on of 
hands to confer the presbyterate." In support of this fanciful 
and ridiculous translation, he quotes Grotius, and refers also to 
Calvin, as giving to it the countenance of his opinion. Now, it is 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 215 

granted that Calvin, in his Institutes, (Lib. iv. chap. 3, sect. 16,) 
does express himself in a manner which favors this interpreta- 
tion ; but afterward, when he came to write his commentary on 
Timothy, when on every principle of justice, we ought to con- 
sider him as expressing his more mature opinion, he delivers the 
following explicit judgment — ;c Presbytery — those who consider 
this as a collective term, intended to express a college of pres- 
byters, in my opinion judge correctly."* But let this virtual 
misrepresentation of Calvin pass. It might be expected, how- 
ever, that, after admitting this interpretation of the pnssage, as 
referring, not to a body of ordain ers, under the name of a pres- 
bytery, but to the office of the presbyterate ; it would, of course, 
be admitted that Timothy was now made a presbyter, or invested 
with the office of the presbyterate. Not at all ! This inference, 
which would seem to be irresistible, (and which, by the way, is 
that which Calvin assumes in the passage referred to by Bishop 
Onderdonk,) must at any rate be ''neutralized," to employ the 
significant language of our author. In order to accomplish 
this, he reminds us that the titles of presbyter, bishop, deacon, 
&c, are so iC loosely " and interchangeably applied in the New 
Testament to all classes of officers, even to apostles, that nothing 
conclusive can be drawn from a name. On the whole, it is 
evident that such are the spectacles with which this gentleman 
views every object which relates to this controversy, that facts, 
names, and the plainest statements, if they happen to make 
against the claim of Episcopacy, — are nothing, — absolutely 
nothing. They are to be moulded, tortured, or nullified at 
pleasure. But the remotest hint that can, by possibility, be 
pressed into the service of prelacy, is a conclusive argument. 
We have no doubt of the entire honesty of all this on the part of 
our author. But it shows the wonderful sway of prejudice. A 
man who has been long in the habit of gravely repeating the 
most irrelative and powerless representations from year to year, 
and calling them arguments, generally comes at length, sincerely 
to believe them not only true, but irrefragable. 

Bishop Onderdonk, however, after plunging from difficulty to 
difficulty, and from one utter failure of proof to another, in this 
part of his argument, still insists upon it that Timothy and Titus 
are represented in the New Testament as prelates ; and that their 
character makes a clear case in favor of Episcopacy. He 
appears to satisfy himself, and evidently expects to satisfy his 
readers, with such reasoning as the following. We do not pro- 
fess to give his exact language in the following sentences ; but 
what, according to our perception, is the real force of his state- 
ment. " It cannot be proved that the Apostle, when he speaks of 

* Tho word TlpxrfivTtpiov occurs but three times in the New Testament, viz. in 
Luke xxii. 66. and in Acts xxii. 5. In each of these cases it is impossible to look at 
the original without perceiving, in a moment, that it refers to a bench or college of 
eMera. The third example of its occurrence is in the case before us ; where wo 
think the same tiling is equally evident. 



216 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

; the hands of the presbytery' being laid on Timothy, refers to 
his ordination at all. It is, perhaps, more probable that it refers 
to his being set apart to a special and temporary service: or it 
maybe understood to mean, (\( it does refer to his ordination,) 
that he was set apart, by the laying on of hands, to ' the pres- 
byterate] that is to the office of presbyter. Yet, even if this be 
supposed, as the title of presbyter, as used in the New Testament, 
means any thing and every thing in ecclesiastical office, it may 
be here construed to mean something higher than a mere pres- 
byter, strictly speaking; therefore there is at least as much 
evidence that it means a prelate as a presbyter. Besides, for any 
thing we know to the contrary, the ' presbytery ' which officiated 
on this occasion c may have consisted of apostles only, or of one 
or more apostles joined with others;' as the Apostle speaks, in 
another place, of having laid his own hands on Timothy. If 
this be so, it cannot, of course, be claimed as a Presbyterian, but 
was an apostolic ordination. We may be considered, then, as 
having proved, that presbyters alone did not perform the ordina- 
tion, granting the transaction to have been one; but that an 
apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to 
the body called a ' presbytery.' It is also worthy of notice that 
St. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own 
agency and that of others in this supposed ordination, ' by the 
putting on of my hands' — 'with the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery.' Such a distinction may justly be regarded as 
intimating, that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from 
Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body, if he were 
included in it, expressed only consent. On the whole, the 
language here used requires us to believe that a minister of 
higher rank than an ordinary presbyter was present and officiated 
in this ordination — or what is said to be the ordination of 
Timothy. At any rate the Episcopal theory is at least as good 
a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word i presbytery ; ' 
and considering the above distinction of 'by 1 and 'with, 1 our 
theory is obviously the better of the two." See pages 18-23. 
In short this wonderful jingle of words, denominated argument, 
when brought into a narrower compass, is to the following 
effect — " It is doubtful whether either of these famous passages 
refers to the ordination of Timothy or not. If either or both 
have such a reference, they admit of an interpretation quite 
as favorable to prelacy as to parity ; therefore, as some other 
passages of Scripture seem to wear an aspect more favorable to 
prelacy than parity, we are bound to interpret these, which are 
acknowledged to be still more doubtful, in the same way." 
Though these are not the ipsissima verba of our author, they 
really present no caricature of his mode of reasoning. We 
verily think that inferences so perfectly inconsequential and 
unwarranted would be driven from any enlightened and impar- 
tial tribunal on earth, as unworthy of an answer. 
Our author next attempts to establish, as a matter of fact, 



TESTED fcY SCRIPTURE* 217 

that Timothy was an Episcopal bishop or prelate at Ephesus. 
This he endeavors to make out in the following manner. He 
first recites the charge which the Apostle Paul gives to the 
elders of Ephesus, with whom he had an interview at Miletus^ 
(Acts xx.) He gathers from this charge the amount of eccle- 
siastical power committed to these elders, and exercised by them. 
He then goes over the epistles to Timothy ; and thinking that 
he perceives larger powers and a higher authority intrusted to 
Timothy than to the elders, he confidently infers that Timothy 
was a minister of superior rank to the elders; in other words, a 
prelate. We consider all his reasoning on this subject as 
entirely without force, or even plausibility ; and we are per- 
suaded all impartial readers will make the same estimate, after 
attentively weighing the following considerations. 

1. We might have expected great diversity in the mode of 
address in these two cases, because the circumstances of the 
persons addressed were essentially different. The elders of 
Ephesus were the officers of an organized and regular church; 
and were charged simply with carrying forward the affairs of a 
collected and officered flock. Whereas Timothy was obviously 
sent on a temporary mission to Ephesus, with a special charge 
to rectify disorders, to correct abuses, and to convey, imme- 
diately from the Apostles, a variety of special instructions, 
respecting the doctrine, the worship, and the officers of that 
church. Surely these circumstances will abundantly account 
for the peculiar manner in which Timothy is instructed and 
exhorted, and the special powers vested in him for discharg- 
ing the duties of this arduous mission. Who would expect to 
find the officers of a regular church addressed in the same man- 
ner with an individual "evangelist" sent on a critical mission 
to the same church in a state of agitation and disorder ? 

2. The address to the elders of Ephesus, when the Apostle 
met them at Miletus, is sufficient, of itself, to destroy the Epis- 
copal claim. We will not stop to inquire whether this inter- 
view at Miletus took place before or after the date of the first 
epistle to Timothy. We care not which alternative is adopted, 
so far as our argument is concerned. The opinion of many 
learned men is, that the interview recorded in Acts xx. occurred 
six or seven years prior to the date of the epistle. This seems 
to be Bishop Onderdonk's opinion, and we are content to 
assume it as correct. Now if it were so, we have the spectacle 
— strange and inexplicable on Episcopal grounds — the specta- 
cle of an inspired apostle solemnly addressing the elders of an 
important church, where the apostle himself had labored for 
three years; reminding them of their duties; exhorting them to 
fidelity ; and formally committing to them the rule and disci- 
pline, as well as the instruction of the flock; and all this, 
without so much as alluding to an ecclesiastical superior. If 
we understand our author, he supposes that, at this time, there 
was no prelate at Ephesus, Timothy not having been yet sent 

19 



218 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

thither. Be it so. Is it not passing strange, then, that the 
Apostle in addressing them should not allude to this defect in 
their ecclesiastical situation ; that he should not sympathize 
with them in regard to it ; and promise, or at least, hint some- 
thing about the future supply of this defect — a defect, on 
Episcopal principles, so essential ? Not a word like this, how- 
ever, is found. On the contrary, the Apostle solemnly commits 
the whale inspection and rule of the church to these elders 
themselves, aud distinctly calls them bishops. "Take heed," 
says he, "to yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy 
Ghost has made you overseers, (in the original svicKoitovs) bishops, 
to feed (the original here signifies to rule as well as to jeed) ihe 
Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. " 
In short, he makes no allusion to any higher authority than 
that which he charges them to exercise. On this occasion 
Timothy himself seems to have been present, Acts xx. 4, 5. 
If, on the other hand, we suppose that the first epistle to 
Timothy was written before the interview at Miletus, and that 
Timothy, or any other person, was then the prelatical bishop of 
the church of Ephesus, the fair presumption against the Epis- 
copal claim becomes still stronger. Can it be imagined, on 
Episcopal principles, thai. Paul would have addressed these 
elders, in the presence of their dioeesa-n, or while he was living, 
if not present, and would have committed the u oversight" of the 
flock entirely to them, without so much as hinting that they 
owed any subjection or reverence to him,, or to any person of 
superior rank? It is impossible. This fact alone does not 
merely render the Episcopal claim improbable; it destroys it; 
unless we suppose that thexApostle expressly intended to deceive 
the elders of Ephesus, or to insult their diocesan, or that he 
forgot — what no modern Episcopalian ever forgets — the dignity 
and prerogative of the prelate. 

3. It is nowhere said, or hinted in Scripture, that Timothy 
ever was bishop of Ephesus, or Thus of Crete. That is, there 
is no evidence whatever in the inspired history, that these men, 
or either of them, ever had a fixed pastoral charge, of many 
months', much less years', continuance, in the places in which 
they are alleged to have been permanently located ; or that they 
ever sustained any title, or enjoyed any authority, which 
marked a prelatical character. We "utterly deny that they ever 
did:; and we are perfectly sure that it never has been, or can be, 
proved from Scripture, That one of them was at Ephesus, and 
the other at Crete, on a special emergency, and for a short 
time, we are, indeed, distinctly informed. But this is all that 
appears. Timothy is represented as travelling from place to 
place continually ; and the same was probably the case with 
Titus. The very epistles themselves which were directed to 
those missionaries contain evidence that, as they had been 
recently sent to Ephesus and Crete, so they were soon to depart 
and go elsewhere. The postscript to the second epistle to 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 219 

Timothy, and the epistle to Titus, which speak of their being 
" bishops," are known to be spurious ; that is, it is certain that 
they make no part of the authorized text, and that they were 
interpolated long after the apostolic age. Of course, they have 
nothing to do with this inquiry. But, though neither of these 
ministers is said in Scripture to have been a "bishop,"' in the 
Episcopal sense of that word, Timothy is expressly styled by 
tiie Apostle an evangelist, (2 Tim. iv. 5,) and the probability is 
that Titus bore the same character. If it be asked, What was 
the nature of the evangelist's office? We answer, in general, 
he was a preacher of the Gospel ; — a bearer of the Gospel to 
those who had it not. But if the inquiry be, W T hat was the 
nature of this office in the early Church? let Eusebius answer. 
He says, "Very many of the disciples of that day travelled 
abroad, and performed the work of evangelists, ardently ambi- 
tious of preaching Christ to those who were yet wholly unac- 
quainted with the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them the 
Scripture of the divine gospels. These having merely laid the 
foundations of the faith, and ordained other pastors, committed 
to them the cultivation of the churches newly planted ; while 
they themselves, supported by the grace and co-operation of 
God, proceeded to other countries and nations." (lib. iii. cap. 37.) 
Bishop Onderdonk, indeed, endeavors to obviate the inference 
drawn from the fact that Timothy is called an evangelist : 
but without the smallest success. The considerations which 
he urges for refuting it, are chiefly the following. [1.] " If 
Timothy is called an evangelist, he is also called an apostle" 
This, as we have seen, rs a mistake,- he is nowhere so called 
in Scripture. [2.] " It does not appear that evangelists, as 
such, had any particular rank in the ministry. Philip, the 
deacon, was an evangelist; and in Ephes. iv. 11, evangelists are 
put after prophets." True, in the apostolic age, they had better 
work to do, than to contend about the adjustment of titles, pre- 
cedence, and rank in the sacred office. But one thing is certain, 
that "evangelists" are distinguished from "apostles" with a 
distinctness which precludes the possibility of our considering 
them as the same. [3.] " If Timothy were an evangelist, there 
is no proof that Titus, and the 'angels' of the seven churches 
were evangelists." This there is much reason to believe is 
a mistake. It is highly probable they were. At any rate, we 
are very sure it cannot be made to appear that they were not. 
[4.] "Eusebius probably refers to bishops, when he speaks of 
these evangelists; and if so, then Episcopacy still prevails." 
This is, again, an entire mistake. Eusebius does, indeed, men- 
tion some as evangelists, by name, who are said to have been 
bishops. Having done this, he goes on to speak of " many 
other disciples" of that day, "as going abroad, and performing 
the work of evangelists;" and to these, he explicitly informs 
us, was committed the ordaining power. His mode of speak 
ing precludes the possibility of their being bishops, in the sense 



220 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 



has been in the constant m^d^rmir^S^Jfl^ 1 ' 7 
of sending out evangelists^ s ' uc ° h r ff ^g^ffiS 
-into .destitute settlements to organize churches ordain el£s 

BO doubt that this was the real fact. if wl Uvail Xing Sfth 

wil f P 7 ' f T aUlh0r ' like ail his Predecessors doubS 
2$ ^P'y- 1 "^ thls fe««W* be, because none but prelates S 
had the power of ordam.ng. Shall we never have done with 
this constant begging of the whole question in dispute ' We 
fearlessly assert that there is not a syllable in lit! Teste! 

E Z r °T- d ' Stan , tly inliinat ^ that either Sthy or 
Titus performed ne work enjoined upon them rather as prelates 

M SIT' V ; a ? d that there is J" st as '""eh re P aso,f to 
assert that all the itinerant missionaries sent out annually bv the 

Presbyterian Church into frontier settlements, are prefates as 
from any thing that is said in the New Testament o ascribe 
such a superior rank to Timothy and Titus S s it wn! be 
said, that although Presbyterian missionaries^ a ways em! 
L°m d °u ° rgamze Church, r s ' a » d * ordain ruling E and 



deacons, they are never ^^^^^^^^ 

YeUh'isX o'? lSterS ° f , the G °, Spei: Thiols, rdoubtS 
Sennll law nr7" 6CC esiastlcal regulation, not a necessary or 
hernltir of <fK»™ house. In our Church, according to 
fndK. • nSl ' tU . tl0n ' ^^oreainers must always be pres'ent, 
and assist m a regular ordination. But there is onite ulS 



t Prth , '" a reg'"ar ordinat.on. But there is quite as regular 
aresutef 11 Church ,n our country, in which two ordainers 
are sufficient.. And a third, equally regular, also in our countrv 
£'»f to whose form of ordinaLnf a single 5ffi2k2 
ncient to complete a regular investiture with the sacred office. 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 221 

We may suppose, then, that Timothy and Titus might have 
been alone charged with the ordaining power, in the peculiar 
circumstances in which they acted, and might have exercised 
It accordingly, without the least departure from: Presbyterian 
principle. 

But did either Timothy or Titus ever, in a single instance, 
perform the work of ordination alone? This is constantly 
taken for granted by Episcopalians; and the establishment of 
the alleged fact is essential to their cause. For if they only 
ordained in company with others, or as members, (perhaps the 
presiding members) of their respective presbyteries^ then we 
have, in each case, a simple specimen of Presbyterian ordina- 
tion. But it is assumed by Episcopalians that they ordained 
alone, without a shadow of proof, and against all probability. 
The question, whether there were or not, at Ephesus and Crete, 
a body of presbyters, at this time, who might, upon Presbyte- 
rian principles, have officiated in the work of ordination, will 
here be left out of view. Archbishop Potter delivers it as his 
opinion, that in Crete, at least, there were none. But we shall 
forbear to canvass this question, as not essential to the argument 
of parity, however it may be answered. Let this have been as 
ft may ; there is every reason to suppose that Timothy and 
Titus were assisted in every ordination by others. We know 
that Mark was with Timothy; and that Zenas and Apollos were 
with Titus. Who can tell but that these ecclesiastical compa- 
nions took part in every ordination? We cannot positively 
assert thatjthey did; but it would be still more presumptuous 
to assert, since they were on the spot, that they did not. And 
yet, unless the patrons of Episcopacy can prove that they took 
no part, and that the "evangelists" ordained alone, their whole 
argument, drawn from this case, falls to the ground. 

Nor does it affect our reasoning to allege, that the Apostle's 
language, through the greater part of the epistles to Timothy 
and Titns, is personal; — that is, the epistles are addressed to 
them individually. For example, such ianguage as the follow- 
ing frequently occurs: — "This charge I commit unto thee, son 
Timothy ;" — "These things write I unto thee, that thoio might- 
est know how to behave thyself in the house of God ;" — "that 
thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine;" 
— " lay hands suddenly on no man," &c. This language mani- 
festly avails nothing to the cause of prelacy; for, 1. As these 
men went to Ephesus and Crete as a kind of special envoys, 
immediately from the Apostle, it was natural that the system of 
instructions should be addressed to them personally ; for in the 
circumstances in which they were placed, they were to be the 
chief counsellors and guides in every thing that was done. 2. A 
Presbyterian ordination never occurs without addressing to the 
newly ordained minister language of precisely the same import; 
or rather, without exhorting him in the very words of Paul to 
Timothy. But no one ever dreams that this language is incon- 
19* 



222: REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sistent with parity. For, although no one of our ministers can 
regularly ordain alone; yet as each possesses the ordaining 
power, it is proper that each should receive a separate and 
distinct charge. 3. If this argyment proves any thing, it will 
prove too much, for it will prove that these evangelists alone 
were empowered to preach and -pray in the respective places to 
which they were sent to minister, for charges in relation to 
these points are given to them in the same personal style. 
4. No evangelist is ever sent forth by our Church for the purpose 
of organizing and "setting in order" churches, without bearing 
with him a body of special instructions, always drawn up in 
the form of a letter, and, of course, addressed to him personally. 
Are all these proofs that our evangelists are prelates? 

In closing our remarks on the alleged prelatical character of 
Timothy and Titus, we have one circumstance to mention, 
which we cannot help regarding as decisive. The circumstance 
is this. Bishop Onderdonk, as we have seen, explicitly acknow- 
ledges that — " all that we read in the New Testament concern- 
ing bishops is to be regarded as pertaining to the " middle 
grade," i. e. to " presbyters," and never to prelates. In other 
words, he acknowledges that the title of " bishop " is, in no case, 
in the New Testament, used to designate a minister of superior 
rank; but always to designate ordinary pastors. Of course, the 
term bishop, as found in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, has 
no reference to prelates. Now, if this be so, then we have no 
allusion whatever, in these epistles, to any such superior officer. 
Among all the counsels and laws intended to be left on perma- 
nent record, for the guidance of Christians in all ages, there is 
not the remotest hint pointing to such an officer. Presbyters, 
or ordinary pastors, ruling elders and deacons, are all plainly 
pointed out, and the proper qualifications and duties of each 
carefully specified. But not a syllable is said to them about 
prelates, their rights, prerogatives, duties, or mode of investiture. 
They are never even once reminded that it is their duty to be 
docile and obedient to their proper diocesan. Assuming Presby- 
terian principles, this is perfectly natural— just what might have 
been expected. If no such officer existed, of course he could not 
be recognised or described. But, on Episcopal principles, it 
appears to us utterly unaccountable. Or rather, it affords, in our 
opinion, conclusive proof that no such officer of superior rank 
was then known in the Church, or intended to be established as 
a permanent order. 

We have only to notice one leading argument more which 
Bishop Onderdonk employs to make out Episcopacy from 
Scripture ; and that is the argument drawn from the " angels " 
of the seven Asiatic churches. In reference to these he reasons 
thus. " Each of these churches is addressed, not through its 
clergy at large, but through its ( angel,' or chief officer. This 
c angel' is addressed personally, and in a manner which implies 
much power and responsibility in his pastoral charge : the sin- 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 223 

gular number is used in speaking to him. This individual is, in 
each case, identified with his church, and his church with him. 
Ergo these 'angels' were prelates." 

Now, we ask, What are all these facts to our author's argu- 
ments? What do they prove? Why may not these " angels" 
have been Presbyterian pastors, just as well as Episcopal 
bishops? Every word that is said of them applies quite as 
appropriately and strictly to the former as to the latter. The 
term "angel," in itself, decides nothing. It simply signifies a 
" messenger." As far as we know its origin, it was derived 
from the Jewish synagogue; every particular synagogue having 
been furnished with an officer bearing this title, and that officer, 
it is well known, was not a prelate. Some of the most learned 
Episcopal writers, however, have been of the opinion, that the 
term " angel" is a figurative expression, intended to point out 
the collective ministry in those churches respectively: and 
hence in addressing the angel of the church in Smyrna, it is 
said, "Some of you I will cast into prison," &c. Nor can we 
infer any thing from the addresses made, or the powers assigned 
to these " angels." They agree just as well with parochial 
bishops, or pastors, as with prelates. And according^ it is 
notorious that some of the most learned and able writers on the 
Episcopal side in this controversy, have given up the argument 
drawn from the apocalyptic * 4 angels," as affording no real 
support to the claim of prelacy. 

Besides, there is another difficulty respecting these " angels" 
of the seven churches, when claimed as prelates. Bishop Onder- 
donk's theory is, that the prelates of the Church in the apostolic 
age, were never called bishops, but apostles ; and that after the 
Apostles' days, these successors to the pre-eminent apostolical 
powers began to be styled bishops. Now, here, according to our 
author, we have a title which is neither the one nor the other;, 
and which appears, as a ministerial title, in no other part of 
Scripture. It will not do to reply, that as all the apostles except- 
ing John, who was made the medium of address on this occasion, 
had passed away, we may suppose that the appointment of 
their prelatical successors had newly commenced, and that 
these "angels" are a specimen. Why not, then, call them 
either apostles or bishopsi Why give them a title intended to 
be applied, as it would seem, in but one case, and then for ever 
dropped? We surely might have expected some intelligible 
intimation of what was intended concerning so great a subject 
as the names and "orders of clergy," before the sacred canon 
was finally closed ;. especially as the transition period from the 
Apostles to their "successors" had now come. But no ; not a 
word. All is still left in doubt and obscurity. And the truth is, 
ihe aspect and character of these addresses themselves do not 
very well correspond with the case of recently appointed 
officers. In reference to at least two of them, there are indica- 
tions o( a long preceding incumbency in office, and of sinking 



224 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

down into lukewarmness and sloth. It is by no means likely 
that, under the eye of inspired apostles, men already in this 
state of moral depression would have been selected to preside 
over churches. In short, the more carefully we examine the 
case of these " angels," the more all dreams of their affording 
support to prelacy are dissipated. 

Such is a cursory view of the arguments produced from 
Scripture, by Bishop Qnderkonk, in support of the Episcopal 
claim. Our only wonder is, that he does not see them to be, 
both in their individual import and i-n their combined charac- 
ter, destitute of even the semblance of force. At every step in 
his progress, unless we are deceived, he has totally and mani- 
festly failed. His method of reasoning, from the beginning to 
the end of his pamphlet, is of the following sort — " This fact 
admits of an Episcopal construction ; at any rate, it cannot be 
proved that its import is in favor of parity. We may. therefore, 
take for granted, or at least it will not be questioned, that its 
meaning is more favorable to Episcopacy than to parity. We 
are warranted, then, in assuming this point as established. To 
us the proof appears absolute ; but it is enough for a rightly dis- 
posed mind that it only preponderate. For, let it not be forgot- 
ten, that as it cannot be proved, it ought not to be allowed, that - 
any but those who held the apostolical or Episcopal officej 
superior to that of mere presbyters, either performed the ordi- 
nations mentioned in Scripture^ or are there said to have the 
right to perform such acts." In such misnamed reasoning as 
this our author abounds; and he so far deceives himself— 
(which we have no doubt he does sincerely) — as to call it 

DEMONSTRATION ! 

But has he really proved any one of those points which are 
not merely important, but even essential to the establishment of 
his claim ? Let us, for a moment, look back and recapitulate. 
Has he proved that the ordaining power was confined to the 
Apostles while they lived ? He certainly has not. The con- 
trary most manifestly appears. In his efforts to establish this 
point, has he proved that Timothy, Barnabas and others were 
apostles in the official sense of that title, because they un- 
doubtedly ordained ? Not at all. But in attempting it, he has 
mangled and perverted Scripture, and entirely misapprehended 
the apostolic character. Has he been able to show from 
Scripture that the Apostles, in their peculiar and pre-eminent 
character, had successors; and that these successors were the 
bishops ? He has not even pretended, so far as we recollect, to 
produce a single scripture which gives the remotest counte- 
nance to either of these positions. Has he proved, or rendered 
even probable, that Timothy or Titus was sent to Ephesus or 
Crete, not on a temporary and extraordinary mission, but to 
occupy a fixed and permanent pastoral charge? He has not; 
nor can he do so. For, from the scriptural account of the 
ministry of those itinerants,, it is* by no means likely that they 




TESTED BY SCBJFTtJRE. 225 

were in either of those places more than a few months, or per- 
haps, weeks. Has he proved that the second epistle to Timo- 
thy was addressed to him at Ephesus at all ? He has not ; and 
some of the most learned commentators have thought it alto- 
gether improbable. Has he given vis the least proof that either 
Timothy or Titus went to Ephesus or Crete in any higher 
character than that of simple " evangelists," sent on a special 
mission, and charged for that purpose with special powers? 
By no means. The whole statement concerning them agrees 
far better with parity than with prelacy ; nor is there a single 
fact or hint in the history of either which necessarily, or even 
probably, implies the latter. Has he shown that before those 
missionaries went to Ephesus and Crete there were teaching 
presbyters or pastors residing in both those places, who might, 
on Presbyterian principles, have performed the work of ordina- 
tion? Or has he proved that either Timothy or Titus ever 
performed a single ordination alone? He has not produced the 
least proof of either, nor can he do it. Has he proved, or ap- 
proached to the proof, that the " angels" of the seven churches 
were prelates? Not at all. Neither their name, nor any facts 
alluded to in their case, give the least intimation that they bore 
this character. The same may be said of every fact and princi- 
ple peculiar to prelacy which he has attempted to establish. 
Instead of producing direct and palpable scriptural testimony, 
he has been compelled to resort to doubtful conjecture, circuit- 
ous inference, and remote probability, or even possibility. No 
one position is firmly supported. Even if he had been able to 
establish every one of the points above referred to as facts, still 
his main object would have been far from being gained. He 
would still be obliged to show, from Scripture, that all this was 
intended to be a permanent arrangement. This he has not 
done. This, we are very sure, he cannot do. His premises 
and his conclusion are alike unsound. 

The last remark brings again to our view a most singular part 
of Bishop Onderdonk's argument, to which we before alluded, 
but which deserves a more pointed notice. He grants, (p. 12,) as 
we have seen, that the title of " bishop," in the New Testament, 
is every where applied to ordinary pastors ; and that it was 
after the apostolic age that the title of " bishop " was taken from 
the " second order of clergy, and appropriated to the first." 
When we came to this point in his argument, we felt curious to 
know what scripture he would produce to attest this last point, 
viz. that " after the apostolic age, the title of ' bishop' was taken 
from the second order, and appropriated to the first." But, at 
this principal link in his chain of proof, he abandons his pro- 
fessed ground. "As we learn," says he — from whom? from any 
inspired writer ?— not at all — " as we learn from Theodoret, one 
of the fathers ! " He does not pretend to find the slightest 
warrant in the Bible for this essential part of his argument. 
How are we to account for this? We thought we had been 



226 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

called to investigate the claim of Episcopacy as "tested by 
scripture: " and here, for an essential link in the chain of proof, 
we are referred to a writer in the fifth century ! We reject this 
proof for several reasons: 1. Because it is not Scripture, and 
with that alone we have to do at present. 2. Because if this 
change of title had the sanction of Divine appointment and if 
the rank which it represents had been regarded as a matter of 
so much importance as modern prelatists annex to it, we might, 
surely, expect to find in the New Testament some intimation of 
what was to take place. 3. Because no one doubts that, in the 
fifth century, when Theodoret Jived, prelacy had crept into the 
Church, and was firmly established ; and that the language 
which he employs fell in with the current claims and practice 
of his day. 4. Because, if the testimony of the fathers is to settle 
this point; (against which we enter our solemn protest; what 
cannot be found in the Bible is no law for Christians;) if an 
appeal must be made to the fathers at all ; pray let us go to 
those who lived nearest to "the apostolic age," and who, of 
course, are the most competent witnesses of what took place 
immediately after that age, when this change of title is alleged 
by our author to have been brought in. Does Clemens Romanus, 
does Ignatius, does Polycarp, say any thing like what Theodoret 
is brought to testify? They lived at the very time when, this 
transfer of titles is alleged to have taken place. Does any one 
of them speak of it? Not a word. But they say very much of 
an opposite import. Ignatius says, again and again, that the 
presbyters succeed in the place of the apostles. Clemens-,, 
who was contemporary with the Apostle John, speaks familiarly 
of the presbyters in his day, as the rulers of the Church, very 
much in the language of the New Testament ; and Irenaeus, who 
flourished toward the latter part of the second century, repeatedly 
speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles. Surely 
the representations of these men, though not constituting our 
rule either of faith or practice, are much more worthy of con- 
fidence than the language of those who lived several centuries 
afterward, when it is known that great corruption, growing out 
of ambition and worldliness, had found its way into the Church, 
and when an erroneous nomenclature, as well as practice, was 
notoriously prevalent. 

Such is the result of our author's appeal to the " test of Scrip- 
ture." If he lias proved a single point peculiar to the Episcopal 
system, from the New Testament, then we know not what proof 
means. Surely if the inspired writers had been Episcopalians; 
and, especially, if they had been believers in its fundamental 
importance, as well as in its Divine appointment ; they could not 
have left the subject in their writings — writings, be it remem- 
bered, expressly intended to guide the Church to the end of 
time ;— they could not, we repeat, have left the subject in so lean 
and doubtful a plight as it would appear from our author's state- 
ment. Bishop Onderdonk has evidently examined the Scriptures 



TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 227 

•with the most anxious vigilance, and with the aid of the best 
divines of his Church who have lived for three centuries; and 
he has evidently collected every fact, hint and allusion that was 
capable of being brought to bear witness, ever so minutely or 
remotely, in favor of his cause. And yet the fact is, that every 
impartial reader must see that he has not been able, in regard to 
any one point, to produce a single scripture, decided and u home 
to his purpose." Now, if Episcopacy had been meant to be 
taught in Scripture, as the only authorized model of church 
order; and if the New Testament had been intended to be a 
sure guide in this matter; can any reflecting man believe that 
the inspired writers would have written as they have done in 
relation to ecclesiastical order? We will venture to say, it is 
impossible! When they had occasion to speak so frequently 
concerning Christian character and hope; concerning the Church, 
its nature, foundation, head, laws, ministers, and interests ; it is 
truly marvellous, if they had thought as the writer of this 
pamphlet does, that they should not have told us something 
more explicit respecting "orders of clergy;" the mischiefs of 
"parity ; " the danger of departure from the regular " succession ; " 
and the fundamental importance of contending for an "author- 
ized priesthood." Had their opinions been those of the author 
of this Tract, they could not have been silent, or have spoken 
doubtfully respecting these points. They would have dwelt 
upon them in every connexion ; have repeated them at every 
turn ; and have made this subject clear, whatever else was left 
in the dark. Now, as it is granted, on all sides, that they have 
not done this; as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge that 
no one of the inspired writers has done it, or is at all explicit 
on the subject; it is as plain as any moral demonstration can be, 
that the principles and claims of this pamphlet were then 
unknown, and, consequently, have no Divine warrant. 



ANSWER 

TO A 

REVIEW OF "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE," 

In the Biblical Repertory for April, 1835. 



Some people are prompt, and some tardy ; the same with 
periodicals ; and the Biblical Repertory is of the latter class — 
perhaps with good reason. By the Biblical Repertory we mean, 
of course, the author of the Review before us. He informs us 
that "copy after copy" of '-'Episcopacy Tested by Scripture" 
was sent him, from about the time of its earliest appearance, yet 
without waking the energies of his tardy pen ; nay without being 
honored with the perusal of more than " a fourth, or at most, a 
third part of its contents." The reason was, that it contained 
nothing with which he was not " familiar." At length, however, 
In time for the April number of the Repertory, and " within 
twenty- four hours" of the moment of penning his third para- 
graph, he vouchsafes it " a cursory perusal." Why, after leaving 
it so long unnoticed and unread, say some four years, why did 
the reviewer at length examine its pages, and even bend his 
powers to the labor of a reply? He informs us that it was 
because " the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable 
character seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and 
louder," and because " some of the less informed of [his] friends 
may misapprehend the reason of [his] silence." Only the " less 
informed," be it noticed; the Biblical Repertory, a thick and 
handsome Quarterly, is the vehicle of communication with the 
" less informed " of the Presbyterians ! One might have sup- 
posed that the columns of one of their religious newspapers 
would be the more appropriate channel. Mark also the words, 
" misapprehend the reason of our silence ;" the silence of this 
individual reviewer, for the Tract had been reviewed a year 
before, in the Christian Spectator. Such language, under such 
circumstances, indicates that this writer understood that himself 
was looked to, by more or fewer of the Christian public, whether 
"less" or better u informed," for a reply to this Episcopal essay. 
In other words, while the reviewer, for himself, deemed the 
Tract, for four years, unworthy of notice, there were those whose 
judgment, either made known to him or taken for granted,, 
constrained him -at length to give his well-trained faculties 
("familiar" with the whole subject) to the. task, and to issue 
his production in one of the choicest Presbyterian periodicals. 
If the author of the Tract were vain of it, he would not covet a 
greater compliment. 

20 c 229 ) 



230 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

After extracting from the Review such a compliment, and 
with the more direct compliments there given us, it may seem 
unkind to say that the tone of the reviewer is that rather of 
a declaimer than of a reasoner. But as "less-informed" per- 
sons are often caught by positive language, and insinuations 
against the parties opposed, it is our duty to say, that this 
positiveness and these insinuations abound in the production 
before us. Let our timid readers then bear in mind, that it is 
easy to say that no man of sense thinks as Episcopalians do, and 
that our opinions have no countenance whatever in the holy 
volume; let them be informed, that men who reason are apt to 
regard such sayings, except as they occasionally escape an 
ardent debater, as mere sound, a lordly kind of scolding, resorted 
to when arguments are scarce, or when the current of argument- 
ation is becoming stagnant. The author of the Tract, says the 
reviewer, is under u the wonderful sway of prejudice" — certain 
of his inferences " would be driven away from any enlightened 
and impartial tribunal on earth : " again, " we confidently assert 
that there is no authority whatever in the Word of God " for 
bishops proper ; the claim of deacons to be clergymen, " has 710 
foundation whatever in the Word of God:" if this claim " had 
not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us 
as possible that it, should enter the mind of any thinking man: " 
again, "the claim advanced in behalf of Andronicus and Junia 
[or Junias] as apostles, is not only unfounded, but really border- 
ing on the ridiculous ; " yes, " ridiculous," although that claim 
is allowed by Calvin, by Diodati, by Aretius, by others in Poole's 
Synopsis, and is regarded as of equal probability, or more 
than equal, with the other construction, by Hammond * and 
Macknight ; yet adds the reviewer, the contrary " is the general 
interpretation of intelligent and impartial commentators:" 
again, " the manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to 

dispose of the plain record is one of the most singular 

examples of evasion and management that we remember ever 
to have seen : " again, the opinion that irpeofivrepiov in 1 Timothy, 
means office, the presbyterate, is "fanciful and ridiculous:" the 
word seems a favorite one, "ridiculous;" though the opinion 
has, in the Tract, the names of Jerome and Ambrose, of Calvin t 
and Grotius, and, in the Answer to Mr. Barnes 5 second Review, 



* Hammond allows this absolutely, on John xx. 21, note b. We here specify for 
this opinion, Menochius, Tirinus, Estius, Vorstius, and Parseus ; see Poole's 
Synopsis. Add also, Parkhnrst and Wolfius, and Whitby, as we understand him ; 
who cites Chrysostom and Theodoret. 

t The objection is repeated by this reviewer, that. Calvin held a different view 
afterward. Not exactly true ; but if it were, he still allowed this one to be reason- 
able- Dr. Bowden made this reply long ago, as the reviewer should have known. 
See also our second Answer to Mr. Barnes. Dr. Cooke, we now observe, has 
answered still more effectually. (Essay, p. 175; Answer, p. 21.) The Institutes, 
in which Calvin made this concession, were first published before his Commentary, 
in which he partly revokes it ; but successive editions of the former, still making 
She concession, were published till "five years before he died." 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 231 

those of a host besides: yet again, speaking of Bishop Onder- 
donk's arguments at large, "our only wonder is, that he does 
not see them to be, both in their individual import, and in their 
combined character, destitute of even the semblance of force;" 
in plainer terms, the reviewer wonders that Bishop Onderdonk 
"does not see" himself to be without "even the semblance" of 
common understanding. 

Such is the tone — we could make other extracts of the same 
kind — of this Review, in a periodical " conducted by an Associa- 
tion of Gentlemen in Princeton." 

Another feature of this Review is, that it creates men of straw, 
fictitious arguments, in the demolition of which the " less- 
informed " readers .will be apt to think that the arguments of the 
Tract are demolished. 1. It is said, that the Tract professes to 
" demonstrate from Scripture" that the name bishop, given in 
Scripture to presbyters, was appropriated afterward to bishops 
proper: and in conformity with this ^c^ron, the reviewer exults 
when he proclaims that this appropriation was proved, not from 
Scripture, but from "one of the fathers." Now, who ever ex- 
pected to prove from the New Testament, an occurrence which 
did not take place till after its books were written? Or, who, but 
the reviewer, deems this change of a name the " principal link 
in the chain of proofs," or even an integral part of the scriptural 
discussion of Episcopacy? We proved the recognition of the 
first order in that volume, without reference to its designation: 
that is the scriptural proof of the only important point. How 
or when that order came by the name of bishop, is a mere 
affair of history : and as historical authority for the change, we 
adduced the declaration of Theodoret; and also the concession 
of Videlius, a learned Non-episcopalian, that it was as early as 
the time of Clement of Rome. Does the reviewer contradict 
this authority? by no means. He only contends that we ought 
to find Scripture — for what? for an event yet future when 
Scripture was written; in other words, & prophecy — a prophecy 
of what? of a mere change of name! A worthy subject of 
prophecy, indeed ! He urges, however, that it related to " a 
matter of so much importance" — importance! we might as 
well ask the Romanists to give us a scriptural prophecy that the 
bishop of Rome would acquire the name of Pope. 

2. It is alleged that the Tract maintains that " the apostles 
alone, while they lived, were invested with the power of ordi- 
nation," "and that when their ministry terminated, they left" 
their rank and rights to "their successors:" to demolish this 
effigy of his own creation, the reviewer replies that " Timothy, and 
Titus, and Barnabas all ordained, and yet they were none of them 
aposties, in the appropriate sense of that title." Now, the Tract 
affirmed that these three ordained, or had the power to do so, 
while most of the apostles were living; as also the seven 
"angels," while St. John was living. While any of the thirteen 
original Apostles were on the earth, these and others were their 



232 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

official compeers; when they died, these and others were their 
successors, as coming after them — in the other sense, their 
succession in sacerdotal standing was from the time they were 
set apart respectively to their high office. The Tract did not 
confine ordaining to those called apostles in Scripture; for it 
ascribed that function to Titus and the seven "angels," who are 
not so designated : it ascribed it to the Apostles, and to certain 
other individuals, not mere elders. May we not ask the 
reviewer, " What does your [fictitious] arguing reprove?" 

3. Some strength of the reviewer, with the aid of the mighty 
name of Barrow, is expended on the proposition, that the 
extraordinary, miraculous, and special powers and duties of 
the Apostles proper, were not committed to successors. Who 
said they were? not the Tract certainly; nor any Episcopa- 
lian we ever heard of. And what further proposition does the 
reviewer superinduce upon this argument of straw ? just this— - 
"But" — O yes, the Presbyterian, as well as the Episcopalian, 
has something to save out of the smoke of this blank volley — 

" But, considering the Apostles as ministers o/'Christ 

they had successors." W T hat an example of much ado about 
nothing ! — of making a speech, and ending at the point started 
from ! Neither party claims succession to the extraordinary 
functions of the thirteen ; but both claim succession to them as 
ministers of Christ." All this was known before. The true 
questions were, What sort or grade of " ministers" succeeded to 
the apostolic ministerial office ? and, Was the superiority of the 
Apostles to the elders an extraordinary and transient arrange- 
ment, or a permanent one in the Church ? To a solution of 
these questions, this part of the labor of the reviewer brings us 
no nearer. The " less informed " may indeed be carried away 
with the torrent of his argument against a shadow, and may 
imagine that beeause no extraordinary apostolical distinctions 
have descended, there is no basis for Episcopacy; but this class 
of readers are beginning to be better "informed," 

4. The reviewer, as also did Mr. Barnes, adverts to the "post-, 
scripts " to the second epistle to Timothy, and to that to Titus, 
" which speak of their being bishops," and very gravely and 
learnedly declares them to be spurious : true — what then ? did 
the Tract refer to them ? no : does any Episcopalian put them 
into the scriptural argument? no: does any Episcopalian mean 
to do so ? no. For what purpose then are they even named in 
this controversy ? for none, that we can perceive, except it be 
to make a display, by arguing down what nobody asserts. 

5. On the word " evangelists," the reviewer offers what he 
deems "conclusive proof, as far as scriptural authority goes, 
that the title has no reference to prelacy." So exactly said the 
Tract; an evangelist might be either bishop, priest, or deacon; 
nay, even the laity "did the work of evangelizing;" the title 
did not imply either one of the sacred offices. Why " proven- 
then, that it " has no reference to prelacy ?" why, but to make 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 233 

a show of proving something, in an argument against Epis- 
copacy ? 

6. On a question of his own raising — " Why may not Timo- 
thy and Titus have been Presbyterian evangelists?" — the 
reviewer says, that the author of the Tract " doubtless will 
reply ) that this cannot be, because none but prelates ever had 
the power of ordaining." An easy way to make answers ! put 
what argument you please into the mouth of your opponent, 
and then, assuming it to be his, exclaim, "Shall we never have 
done with this constant begging of the question in dispute ?" 
Let us turn about this weather-cock logic. Why may not 
Timothy and Thus have been Episcopal evangelists? the 
reviewer " doubtless will reply," that there is no Episcopacy in: 
Scripture; and then we, in turn, will "doubtless" echo his 
rejoinder, "Shall we never have done with this constant beg- 
ging of the question ? " Such questions and answers might be 
stereotyped, with blank spaces, and filled up for any contro- 
versy on any subject. We say that Timothy and Titus were 
not Presbyterian evangelists, because there is no scriptural evi- 
dence, or no clear evidence, that presbyters ordained ; and no 
scriptural evidence whatever, that presbyters governed presby- 
ters. That is our " reply ; " the reviewer has ascribed to us a 
fictitious one. And we see no reason for his doing so, but to. 
exhibit to his "less-informed friends" his prowess in knocking 
to pieces a puppet of his own fabrication. 

And now we submit to every one who. has read impartially 
the Tract, and this Review of it, whether in our exposure of the 
tone of the latter, in regard to its mere bold assertions and detract- 
ing insinuations, and of its wasted valor upon arguments which 
no one controverts, or which no one offers, we have not taken out 
the larger half of its pith and substance ?. We might go further, 
and ask of such readers, whether the reviewer has weakened the 
Tract in any one point? But as this might be deemed an imita- 
tion of him in the error of positiveness, we must reply to his 
reasoning, such as it is. This, for substance, is an easy work ; 
but as brief objections often require long answers, we fear that 
we sentence ourselves to no small labor, and perhaps our readers 
to more fatigue than may be acceptable to them. It is a matter 
of duty, however, and we therefore do not shrink from the task. 

In the tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," we passed 
over the claims of our deacons, because the discussion was 
unimportant, as compared with the grand one, that of the 
claims of our bishops. But the reviewer brings them into the 
debate, and we are content to meet him. That therefore will, 
as with him,, be our first topic ; and then we shall take in hand 
his general argument against Episcopacy. 

I. The reviewer takes the usual ground, that deacons were 
first appointed when "the seven" were ordained, in Acts vi. ; 
and that their [only] duties are there " explicitly and plainly 
stated." We join issue with him on both points. 
20* 



234 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

And here we begin with the remark, that "the seven" are 
nowhere in Scripture called deacons — not once. The purport 
of this remark is, that, as in all sound reasoning, we are not 
here to look to names h but to things or facts. That "the 
seven" were deacons, we neither question nor doubt; we judge 
they were such, not from the name, which they have not in 
Scripture, but from their functions. If, however, we can find 
that their functions were exercised by others before them, then 
we say that such ministers as " the seven " existed previously to 
the appointment of these. If also we can show, that when the 
title "deacons" does occur in Scripture, not a word is said of 
their " serving tables," we think we shall have a strong argu- 
ment that that could not have been the only function of the 
ministers who had this official designation. The passage now 
before us is this, from Acts vi. 

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, 
there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because 
their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, itaicovta. Then 
the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is 
not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve Siukovuv tables. 
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out from among you seven men of honest 
report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint 
over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and 
to the ministry Siaieovia of the word. ***** 

Whom they set before the Apostles : and when they had prayed, they 
laid their hands on them. 

We have inserted the Greek words, that it may be seen that 
they are not used in the appropriate sense. They are applied 
to the " daily ministration," which took place before " the 
seven " were appointed ; to the " service " which the twelve 
must have done had they not been appointed; and to the 
"ministry of the word :" in the two former clauses, the appro- 
priate sense might be claimed, were it not that the name " dea- 
con " does not yet appear to have been given, and were not the 
expression, at its third occurrence in the passage, clearly em- 
ployed in the more general signification. It is plain, therefore, 
that " the seven " are not called " deacons," even by impli- 
cation. 

It is commonly supposed, we believe, that before the appoint- 
ment of " the seven," the Apostles performed the office of 
"serving tables;" but this we deem a mistake. They agreed, 
that "it was not reasonable for them to leave the word, and 
serve tables." Surely it was just as unreasonable for them to 
do so previously as subsequently — and therefore we judge there 
were servants of tables (whether with higher functions or not) 
from the time the property of Christians was put into a com- 
mon fund, from which " distribution was made to every one, as 
he had need." So obvious is this consideration, that Matthew 
Henry, Doddridge, and T. Scott, allow that the Apostles had 
agents for this work before this period ; Bishop Stack thinks 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 23j 

rt the ministration was left at large ;" and Mosheim says, " The 
Church was undoubtedly provided from the beginning with 
inferior ministers, or deacons ; no society can be without its 
servants, and still less such societies as those of the first Chris- 
tians were." Here, then, is our first reason for asserting that 
there were such functionaries before "the seven:" the work 
was extensive from the first, among the many thousands of 
converts, not a few of whom must have been supported from the 
general fund; and the Apostles would have had to "leave 
the word" altogether, had they discharged this lower office, 
which would " not " have been " reasonable." Our next argu- 
ment for this position is, that had the " twelve " given their 
spare time, if they at first had enough, to " this business," and 
yet afterward found it insufficient, because the number of dis- 
ciples was " multiplied," and still multiplying, they would have 
scarcely appointed only " seven " persons to take their place : 
we allow that the contrary supposition is not impossible, but we 
submit that it is improbable; if so, it is just as probable that 
there were previously those, not apostles, who performed " the 
daily ministration" of "serving tables." Our third argument 
for this opinion is, that it can hardly be supposed that the 
twelve inspired Apostles would " neglect " any of the poor, and 
particularly that they would be guilty of "neglect" with a 
fatty or partial aspect, favoring the " Hebrew " widows to the 
injury of the " Grecian" — the home-born Jewish Christians, 
rather than the foreign of Jewish descent. True, some com- 
mentators allege that the "murmur" was unjust; but the holy 
record says no such thing; and the Apostles allow its justice in 
providing a remedy for the "neglect." Wo repeat, then, that 
the previous "ministration." and the "negligent" manner of 
fulfilling it, are to be ascribed to other agents than the Apostles. 

The only seeming objection to this view of the case, is the 
expression "but we will give ourselves continually to prayer, 
and the ministry of the word." This, we say, is but an objec- 
tion in appearance, for it means no more than " we will 'per- 
severe in constant attention to these duties." It does not imply 
that the Apostles had previously given but a partial attention to 
them. We are not certain but we are honored with the concur- 
rence of the reviewer on this point — he argues "that the Apos- 
tles considered the duties of this office as of such a nature, 
that their undertaking to fulfil them, would compel them to 
leave preaching, and devote themselves to the care oi money 
tables." We suppose he means that they had at no time ful- 
filled " this office ; " his argument is decidedly to that effect. 

It follows, we think, from this course of reasoning, that " the 
seven" were appointed to make up the deficiency in the number 
of the functionaries who, till now, had "served the tables" — 
and particularly to meet the claims of the " Grecian " poor. 
Accordingly Mosheim, after mentioning the earlier "deacons," 
adds—" These first deacons of the Church, being chosen from 



236 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

among the Jews who were born in Palestine, were suspected 
by the foreign Jews of partiality in distributing the offerings, 
which were presented for the support of the poor. To remedy, 
therefore, this disorder, seven other deacons were chosen by 
order of the Apostles, and employed in the service of that part 
of the church at Jerusalem which was composed of the foreign 
Jews, converted to Christianity. Of these new ministers, six 
were foreigners, as appears by their names ; the seventh was 
chosen out of the proselytes, of whom there were a certain 
number among the first Christians at Jerusalem, and to whom 
it was reasonable that some regard should be shown in the 
election of the deacons, as well as to the foreign Jews." This 
view of the affair of the deacons is just and probable every way. 
It was not a general " neglect " that was complained of, but a 
party one, or partiality ; of which the Apostles could not have 
been guilty, but only their agents ; and such other agents were 
appointed as would remedy this evil precisely. Among "the 
seven" there does not appear to have been one native " Hebrew," 
an omission which, without the construction before us, would 
have invited a " murmur" from the party before favored. The 
number of disciples was great — three thousand on the day 
of Pentecost — five thousand soon afterward — then " multitudes 
of men and women" added — then the number "multiplied:" 
add to these facts, that large sums were contributed, and that 
the " ministration " of them was extensive, and it will scarcely 
he denied that "seven" men were not enough to superintend 
minutely their distribution. We again affirm, therefore, that 
others besides " the seven " must havo performed that function 
before them. 

One corollary to this conclusion is, that if " the seven " were 
deacons because they "served tables," these others were dea- 
cons for the same reason. And thus the first institution of this 
office is not found in the chapter before us. 

A further corollary is, that as "the seven" were ordained, 
those who were deacons before them must have had a similar 
or an equivalent setting apart. Strange would it have been, to 
have one portion of these officers solemnly dedicated to their 
work, when the other portion had been left without any such 
honor. Ill calculated would it have been to allay party " mur- 
muring," to have the deacons for the Grecians ordained, when 
those for the Hebrews had received no separation. The pre- 
sumption, then, the stro,ng presumption, without a particle of 
evidence to the contrary, is, that the earlier deacons were 
solemnly commissioned to their station in the Church. If the 
Apostles did not conduct previously this " ministration," which 
it seems clear they did not— .if others had acted, under their 
general superintendence, in discharging it — then, whatever rea- 
sons existed for setting apart " the seven V to, discharge it, under 
their continued supervision, the same reasons must have required 
the former agents also to be men set apart to the office. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 237 

And now, this portion of our argument advances rapidly. 
There were already, before " the seven" were ordained, men 
who had the same right to be called deacons that they had. 
These men were also ordained, or set apart, or solemnly 
commissioned. Who were these men ? Nothing is intimated 
of such an ordination in the previous chapters of the Acts. But 
there is a yet earlier record of a sacred commission given to 
others than the twelve Apostles : it is found in Luke x. ; where 
it is declared that "the seventy" were "appointed," and sent 
forth to proclaim the Gospel, and that they " returned " from 
their mission. What became of them after their return ? Not 
a word more is explicitly recorded concerning them. Are we 
to infer then that they abandoned their sacred calling, and did 
nothing further in their ministry? Are we to suppose that 
they are really, as well as apparently, out of sight, in the 
subsequent parts of the inspired history ? Or shall we rather 
presume, that some of these commissioned men were the deacons 
who officiated before " the seven " were ordained ? To us, this 
presumption appears probable in the highest degree. Indeed, 
the alternative is, to suppose a previous ordination by the 
Apostles, not hinted at, or to allow that some of these, known to 
have been set apart, were the functionaries we are in quest of. 
We are aware that very many ordinations must have taken 
place which are not recorded, and that this act at the hands of 
the Apostles may, without inconsistency, be supposed of these 
earliest deacons. But we submit that the supposition is needless, 
when we find so large a number of men already ordained or 
" appointed " by the Saviour^ 

Our Presbyterian brethren, of course, make here the usual 
objections. Deacons, they allege, were not empowered to 
preach, as "the seventy" were; and therefore "the seven" 
and " the seventy " could not have held the same office. This 
further topic we now present to the reader. 

And we first ask, Why were deacons ordained at all, if they 
only " served tables," if they were mere treasurers and almon- 
ers? and why ordained by the Apostles? These functions are 
quite common in various departments of society. Vast num- 
bers of persons are constantly intrusted with the money of 
others — clerks, agents, apprentices, servants, the porters of 
counting-houses — with large sums. What is there in such a 
trust to make it probable that apostolic ordination would be 
required, when the trust related to the funds of the Church ? 
Who thinks of a formal induction into such a trust, in any other 
case? — except, perhaps, in some associations, where it is done 
merely for parade — which of course is no analogy to be applied 
to church affairs. All analogy is against the notion that men 
should be ordained, when the one function is, to have charge of 
money and the poor. The presumptive argument is, then, that 
" the seven," when ordained, were not ordained for this business 
alone, but also for other duties, such as would correspond in 



238 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP 

sacredness, with that of trie very high solemnity with which 
they were set apart. 

Nor are we without sufficient intimations of these further 
duties; When " deacons" are mentioned in Scripture by that 
title, in 1 Tim. iii., not a word is said of their having charge of 
money and the poor— not a hint of the sort is given : it is pro- 
bable that this part of their office became much less important, 
when the large contributions to the Church ceased to be made ; 
and were it not for the case of " the seven," who yet have not 
the title, no one would apply such a key to the recital in that 
chapter, of the qualifications they should possess. On the 
contrary, the passage implies that they were an inferior grade 
of clergymen. Let us examine the proofs of this assertion. 
1. They were required to " hold the mystery of the faith in a 
pure conscience:" on which qualification Macknight says, and 
refers also to Beza — " Soundness in the faith being required in 
deacons, it is a presumption that they were sometimes em- 
ployed in teaching; but whether by preaching, or by catechiz- 
ing is hard to say. They likewise performed the office of 
readers, in the Church." Doddridge also allows, on a sub- 
sequent verse, that "it is highly probable deacons might 
frequently officiate as occasional teachers in public assem- 
blies." Scultetus allows this function of deacons more expli- 
citly. (Poole's Synopsis.) 2. Those who " have used the office 
of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree." Many 
Presbyterian commentators, the majority of those now within 
our reach, regard this "good degree" as advancement to the 
pastoral office. Those who act well as deacons, may expect to 
be promoted, and made presbyter-bishops : no exception is 
made or hinted ; it was the rule that worthy deacons should be 
ordained presbyters ; such was the reward of their fidelity, as 
the word "purchase" implies. Is there such a rule, or such a 
reward, in the case of the deacons of parity? could there be 
sueh a rule, or such a reward, for those who only " served 
tables?" No; the idea is preposterous; for there is no affinity 
between such an office and that of ministers of the word and 
sacraments; men may excel, and may improve through their 
whole life, in the stewardship of earthly things, yet be totally 
unfit to be stewards of things heavenly. An affinity then there 
must be, between the functions of deacons and those of presby- 
ters, or the inspired language before us is incongruous and void 
— there must be that in " the office of a deacon," besides his 
"serving tables," which, if duly improved, will^ him for "the 
office of a [presbyter] bishop." In other words, the two offices 
must be similar, both sacred, and concerning sacred functions ; 
only the former is inferior to the latter — in what particulars we 
shall show hereafter.* We add, in this place, a coincidence in 



* Dr. Campbell says — " The deacons were admitted very early, probably 

in the time of the Apostles, to an inferior part in the sacred ministry, such as 



EPtSCOPAGV TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 239 

phraseology of some weight. St. Paul says, "If any man 
desire the office of a [presbyter] bishop, he desireth a good 
tcaXov work;" and then, as if to point to that expression, he 
declares, "They that have used the office of a deacon well 
purchase to themselves a good naXov degree" — the passages are 
translated by Macknight, " an excellent work," " an excellent 
degree." We submit that on the very face of the chapter, the 
reference of the latter phrase to the former is highly probable. 
We further suggest, that the expression " a good work " is 
regarded by commentators as very emphatic ; and the Apostle 
would hardly use the same emphatic word within a few verses, 
and apply it to the encouragement of deacons, unless he meant 
that their fidelity would entitle them to a share in the " good 
work" of presbyter-bishops. The deaconship then was the 
first "degree" in the same sacred office of which presbytership 
was the second " degree." 3. It is further declared by St. Paul, 
that those who " have used the office of a deacon well purchase 
to themselves [or obtain] great boldness in the faith which is in 
Christ Jesus." This is interpreted by Macknight, " great cour- 
age in teaching the Christian faith j" implying that teaching 
the faith was an employment of deacons, as such. And this is 
the true meaning. For, why should the mere servants of tables 
acquire more "boldness in the faith" than the other laity? 
The language evidently imports that deacons were officially 
connected with the Christian faith, were officially occupied in 
studying it, as theologians by profession, and were officially 
pledged to declare and maintain it. If it be objected, that their 
acquiring this boldness and confidence in preaching, may mean 
their having such a quality after reaching the " good degree" of 
presbyters, we answer, that the Apostle speaks of it as pro- 
duced, " purchased," obtained, by " using the office of a deacon 
well:" and this unavoidably implies that declaring the faith 
was part of that office, and that, by discharging this branch of 
the office with fidelity, deacons became such proficients as to be 
able to discharge the same duty with perfect confidence when 
the time of their promotion should come. We think, then, that 
the inference is as clear as any deduced from the Bible, that 
the scriptural deacons were ministers of the word, yet of an 
inferior grade, and preaching with less " boldness," with less 
authority, than they would when advanced to be presbyters; 
they were intrusted with the Gospel, but not fully and finally; 
their powers, in this respect, were equivalent to those of our 
deacons, who preach under a license from their superior. 

On the principle that all who are commissioned to preach 
"the faith," have power to admit men to the visible profession 
of that faith, by baptizing them — which appears a sound rule, 
and indeed to follow by unavoidable consequence — we regard 



attending the pastors in the discharge of the religious offices, and acting under 
their direction. The deaconship served in fact as a noviciate to the ministry." 



240 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP 

the account of deacons given by St. Paul as including, by just 
inference, their right to administer that sacrament. We sup- 
pose that it is allowed, on all hands, that every minister of the 
Gospel may baptize. If then Paul's description makes deacons 
such ministers, they have that power. And that Paul does 
make them ministers of the Gospel, we have shown, we trust, to 
be a moral certainty. 

The only objection adduced by the reviewer, is, that it is not 
required, in this passage, that deacons, like presbyter-bishops, 
be " apt to teach." The objection is of no force. They were 
inferior ministers, as yet acquiring their aptness to teach, their 
"boldness" in declaring the faith. When, as deacons, the) r 
had obtained this boldness, then they were " apt to teach," and 
prepared for promotion to the " good degree," the " good work " 
of presbyter-bishops. 

Let us now bring back this evidence to the case of " the 
seventy." We suggested the probability that some of them 
were the deacons which the church at Jerusalem had before 
" the seven " were ordained. The objection was, that " the 
seventy " had power to preach. But this objection we have now 
set aside — deacons, expressly so denominated, had power to 
preach. The reader will of course bear in mind, that " the 
seventy " not being called deacons, is no more argument against 
having had that office, than the same fact in regard to "the 
seven " is argument against their having had it — not once is the 
appellation " deacon " given to them. We think, therefore, we 
have offered an unexceptionable statement of the condition 
of the church in Jerusalem, in this respect, at the period in 
question. That it had deacons at that period, is every way 
probable. And that these were some of " the seventy," is far 
more probable than that others were ordaineid, when there were 
so many already commissioned. 

But it will be further objected, that "the seventy" could not 
have been mere deacons, because they received (Luke x.) the 
same powers, and were to perform the same duties with those 
of " the twelve," (Matt, x.) who were, it is alleged, full minis- 
ters of the Gospel — the reviewer appears to regard both as 
having the same commission. The reply to this objection is 
easy. The ordinary powers first bestowed on " the twelve," 
were to preach and baptize, the latter being inferred from the 
fact that they did so, and from the commission to proclaim 
"the kingdom of God," which implies the right to admit into 
that kingdom by this initiating ordinance.* The same ordinary 

* This commission was given to the twelve when they were first called, respect- 
ively, by the Saviour ; they baptized before John was cast into prison. (John iii. 22 ; 
iv. 2.) The account therefore in Matt. x.. and the parallel places, being subsequent 
to this event, refers only to a mission on which they were sent, and a charge 
concerning its fulfilment — and also to their endowment with miraculous powers. 
It is a recognition of the ministerial character they already possessed. The first 
call of several of the twelve is mentioned in John i. 35, <&c. that in Matt. iv. 18, 
<£c, was a subsequent one. (See Macknight.) 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 241 

powers, so far as can be gathered from the holy record, were 
conferred on " the seventy." But after the first commission of 
"the twelve," and about the time, perhaps just before "the 
seventy" were sent forth, the former received, in addition 
to their previous investiture, the power of the keys, (Matt, xviii.) 
the right to admit to communion, or reject from it ; the right to 
declare absolution, or refuse to do so — which included, of 
course, the right to administer the eucharist, recognised as 
existing in " the twelve," at the first celebration of that sacra- 
ment. These further powers " the seventy " received not, as 
such ; they did not receive them from the Saviour, though they 
may nave been subsequently promoted to this " good degree " 
by the Apostles. Here then we have a body of ministers, com- 
missioned to preach and baptize, hut not to exercise the 
power of the keys — in other words, an inferior grade of minis- 
ters [proper] of the Gospel — just such as "the twelve" had 
lately been. Their functions correspond precisely with those 
we have detailed from St. Paul, in the epistle to Timothy ; 
without the name, their office is that of the "deacons" there 
described. And thus vanishes the last objection to the earliest 
deacons at Jerusalem being some of "the seventy." 

Nay more: from this last exposition, we gather an increased 
probability that such was the fact. This body of ministers were 
"appointed" to the deaconship. Is it to be supposed, that they 
renounced their work when their special mission ceased? Is it 
to be supposed that, when the Church began to be numerous, and 
to acquire consistence, and was in need of services in their par- 
ticular station, they had all deserted their Master and his apostolic 
representatives, their superiors? We think not. Some of them 
may have been dispersed over Judea, as part of the " five hundred 
brethren" Were, when only "a hundred and twenty " were left 
in Jerusalem ; but a portion of them were doubtless in that 
city — on the spot — deacons, ready for their work; but of the 
"Hebrew" class, which made it expedient to choose others, for 
the "Grecians" and the proselytes. 

In the fact that "the seventy" held the office of deacons, 
we have a full refutation of the plea that Philip, " one of the 
seven," must have reached a higher office before he evangelized 
and baptized. The "seventy" evangelized and baptized, with- 
out attaining a higher office. The whole evidence in regard to 
Philip is, that he was ordained a deacon, and that he preached, 
and administered baptism largely, about a year afterward, and 
that he is called an "evangelist" some twenty-six years after 
these occurrences. If any object, that by this time, he possibly 
had attained the "good degree" of a presbyter, we might let 
it pass, except that it is not in the record, and he is even then 
called " one of the seven." * But this mere possibility, if we 



* Dr. Campbell regarded the office of evangelist as an extraordinary one, and 
supposed it might be held by one whose ordinary office was that of a deacon. He 

21 



242 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

did let it pass, of his being a presbyter at the very late period 
mentioned, does not imply a probability of any kind or degree, 
that he had reached that grade in one year from his ordination 
as deacon : for such an allegation we ask evidence ; but there is 
none. We affirm, therefore, that so far as appears from the facts, 
without any presumption or probability to the contrary, Philip 
preached and baptized as a deacon. It is not in the power of 
man to give any other scriptural view of the case. 

As to that of Stephen, we do not read that he baptized, but 
neither do we read that he actually served tables; and if any 
allege that the latter is probable, from the context, we allege that 
the former also is probable, from the other scriptural consider- 
ations we have adduced. All that is recorded of him, having 
reference to the point before us, is, that he was constantly 
engaged in defending the Gospel ; that he had, as a deacon 
should seek to have, "great boldness in [declaring] the faith 
"which is in Christ Jesus" — "This man," said his enemies, and 
though they were " false witnesses," it was only in the construc- 
tion of his preaching — "this man ceaseth not ov navsrai to speak 
blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law : for we 
have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy 
this place, and shall change the customs (or rites) which Moses 
delivered us." Does this account agree with the notion that the 
deacon Stephen was a mere servant of tables? He proclaimed 
" Jesus of Nazareth." He declared the very important doctrine 
of the passing away of the Mosaic "customs or rites," by their 
fulfilment in the Christian dispensation. He "ceased not" to 
do this. The reviewer is mistaken, when he says that Stephen 
u simply replied to those who 'disputed' with him;" he evi- 
dently did more, he made the defence of the Gospel his business. 
Nay, "when the "disputers" with him began, Stephen had obvi- 
ously been proclaiming already the subjects they undertook to 
" dispute " about ; he had already been proclaiming Christianity, 
and inculcating the evanescence of the Levitical ceremonies ; 
topics which belong especially to authorized teachers, and to 
them exclusively if present or near at hand, not to laymen. 
Here surely, then, is a preaching deacon, if there ever was one. 
So decidedly does this appear, that Campbell and others say he 
was an evangelist; but without a particle of scriptural authority 
— he had not the title, though, like "the seventy," he did "the 
tnork of an evangelist," and that most earnestly and "boldly," 
and while like them, he was officially no more than a deacon. 
His defence before " the council" is of the same character. 

We have now vindicated, on scriptural grounds, and we trust 
effectually, the claims of our deacons. Our argument in their 

says—" Philip is, m another place, but at a later period, expressly called an evan- 
gelist. Acts xxi. 8. It is worthy of notice, that his office of deacon is there also 
named, that we may not confound them, or ascribe to the one what belonged to the 
other." We adduce this extract, as corroborating the opinion that Philip remained 
a deacon till the year 60 4 when, however, he was also an "evangelist." 






EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 243 

behalf, is not indeed so perfect a demonstration, as that in the 
Tract in the cause of our bishops. Yet we deem it fully suffi- 
cient. The grand point in Episcopacy, the exclusive rights of 
the first order, being proved by a clear induction, what we have 
now offered is an ample defence of the subordinate point, the 
rights of the third order. We submit it, without fear, as a 
complete refutation of the remarks of the reviewer. 

Before leaving the scriptural topics under this head, we must 
exhibit some of them again, briefly, to show their further results. 
We have seen that " the twelve" had at first the right only to 
preach and baptize; which made them deacons in office, accord- 
ing to St. Paul s standard, though, like " the seven," without the 
name: there being as yet no occasion, they did not act as 
almoners; or rather, if fanciful, it is nothing worse, to allege 
that thisdiaconal function was adumbrated in their distributing 
the provisions, when Jesus fed the multitudes. After serving in 
this lower ministry, "the twelve" received the power of the 
keys; by which promotion, they attained the "good degree," 
and were commissioned to the "good work," of presbyter- 
bishops. All this occurred before the death of our Lord. After- 
ward, after his resurrection, "the eleven" were commissioned 
a third time; Christ "breathed" on them, and said, "Receive 
the Holy Ghost;" they thus obtained a further, and of course, 
higher power of the keys ; they were " sent " by Christ, as the 
Father had sent him; he made them the representatives in "all 
the world," in "all nations," of the "power given unto him in 
heaven and in earth ;" and declared he would be " with " them, 
with them and their successors, " always, even unto the end of 
the world;" which intimation of their having successors in 
office, implies their power to create them, i.e. to ordain such 
ministers as themselves, and of course those of the inferior 
grades. This third commission made the Apostles more than 
they were before; more than presbyter-bishops, which they 
became on acquiring their first power of the keys : in other 
words, it made them apostle-bishops, bishops proper. Here then, 
in the facts of the case as recorded in Scripture, we see plainly 
the three orders of Episcopacy — the aposiles rose to their full 
eminence through those " degrees " — being first deacons in func- 
tion, then presbyters, and then bishops. And here we are happy 
to find that the reviewer agrees with us in part. We claim three 
successive commissions for the Apostles — he allows two. He 
speaks of the first " commission given by our Lord to the twelve, 

and afterward to the seventy," and says that it " includes 

what belongs to every minister of the Gospel: " the twelve then, 
according to the reviewer, were "ministers of the Gospel" by 
their earliest commission, whatever was its date. He speaks 
also, in the paragraph the third previous, of " the final commis- 
sion which the Saviour gave to the Apostles," after his resur- 
rection, and which, he allows, contains the promise that "is 
considered as pointing to the ministerial succession." Plainly^, 



244 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

then, the reviewer being judge, we have two sacred commissions 
— and two commissions imply two offices, or two grades of 
office: what, alas, becomes of parity? Two commissions — the 
first made the twelve " ministers of the Gospel " — what did the 
second make the eleven? — something different? no; they con- 
tinued to be Christ's " ministers " — something less? no; they 
lost no power they had received — it follows unavoidably, that it 
made them something more! The first commission inducted 
them into the ministry, the second commission inducted them 
into something more ; in other words, it made them higher 
ministers than the first did : what becomes of parity? verily, 
she has the coup de grace from one of her own sons. Two 
commissions, again — the first contained no promise that is " con- 
sidered as pointing to the ministerial succession," and of course 
implied no power to ordain ; the second does contain that 
promise, and implies that power ; the ordaining function then 
does not belong to the lower ''ministers of the Gospel," but only 
to the higher: what becomes of parity? slain already, we can 
only add, that she is now buried — and both at the hands of the 
reviewer ! This done, we ask him, or any other candid investi- 
gator of Scripture, who finds there the two commissions, whether 
he does not rather find the three that we have described — that 
to an office equivalent to deaconship, before the power of the 
keys was given — that to an office equivalent to presbyter ship^ 
when that power was added to those before possessed — and that 
to an office equivalent to the episcopate, when the promise 
was added, " which is considered as pointing to the ministerial 
succession ? " 

Another result, from the scriptural topics we have had before 
us, is to this effect. The " seventy " were ministers without the 
power of the keys ; in other words, they held the office of 
deacons, as defined by Paul. About the time they were thus 
commissioned, "the twelve" received that power;' in other 
words, they were advanced to the office of presbyters. Here 
are those two orders existing at the same time, during our 
Lord's personal ministry. Can we not find the highest order 
likewise, at that period? If our Saviour declared that He was 
"sent" by the Father, "as" himself sent the Apostles, when 
he gave them this highest office, may we not justly regard 
him as, in this particular sense, as well as generally, the chief 
minister of his religion, while he was on earth ? He is called 
" the Apostle of our profession," or religion, after that word had 
obtained its appropriate meaning, and the apostles were distin- 
guished from the elders : is it then a mere fancy to consider 
him as the Apostle distinctively, while "the twelve" were 
elders, and "the seventy" were deacons? In point of fact, he 
had the powers thus assigned him ; is it not fair, then, as 
a matter of construction, to regard him at the time mentioned, 
as holding those powers in the express relation to his Church 
of its chief earthly minister, the highest of the three orders'? 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 245 

We would not rest any part of the proof of Episcopacy on this 
construction ; but, with that constitution of the sacred office 
otherwise proved, we deem this a further illustration of it, and 
also sufficient evidence that it existed, in its entireness, during 
our Lord's personal ministry. With this threefold arrangement 
of the Christian priesthood, carried up to the immediate eye, 
and direct appointment of the Saviour, we see clearly its uni- 
formity and unchangeableness. Jesus was made a "priest" 
and a " high-priest" after the order of Melchisedec, when the 
" voice from heaven" proclaimed, "Thou art my beloved Son." 
Holding thus the supreme commission, he gives to " the twelve," 
first, the lowest one ; and then, promoting them to the middle 
grade, he completes the three orders by substituting for them 
" the seventy." Thus commenced the " bright succession " — 
and thus will it continue " through all the courses of the sun" — 
yes, " always, even unto the end of the world." 

We like the scriptural argument It is always satisfactory, when 
fairly and adequately conducted. But we must quit it now for a few 
moments, to follow the reviewer in his excursion to the fathers, for matter 
against, our deacons. And we present this portion of our remarks in a 
different type, that it may not be confounded with the rest of them. 

Hermas is the reviewer's first authority, whom he cites thus — "Some 
were set over inferior functions or services, being intrusted with the care 
of the poor and widows." Let us read the same passage in Archbishop 
Wake's translation, " Such as have been set over inferior ministries, and 
have protected the poor and the widows.' 1 The reviewer seems to make 
the care of the indigent the only kind of function performed by deacons. 
But the other translation makes that care one among other " ministries " 
appointed them — and even the reviewer's version admits this interpret- 
ation — so that deacons were not regarded by^Hermas as mere servants 
of tables. 

Origen says that deacons " preside over the money- tables of the 
Church " — he blames those of them who " do not manage well " " this 
business" — and he adds, that "we are taught in the Acts " that deacons 
" were appointed" to " this function." Who doubts all this, or any point 
of it? Origen says not that they have no other functions. 

Cyprian speaks of a deacon who was " deposed" for his " fraudulent 
and sacrilegious misapplication of the Church's money," and for with- 
holding the " pledges deposited with him " by " widows and orphans " — 
he regards also, says the. reviewer, the transaction in Acts vi. as the first 
appointment of deacons. What conclusion do these citations furnish that 
deacons had no other function than the care of the poor ! Does not the 
reviewer know that Cyprian says, " Those who believed in Samaria were 
baptized by Philip the deacon ? " The same deacon preached to them. 
(Ep. 73 ; Potter, 248.) 

Ambrose, [rather the commentary ascribed to him,] "speaking of the 
fourth century" says, " The deacons do not publicly preach " — they might, 
however, for any thing that the reviewer cites, teach in their subordinate 
capacity. But it is to be noted, that Ambrose speaks of this state of 
things as a. change from the former one, for he declares, (Potter, 233,) 
K At the beginning all were allowed to preach (evangelizare ;) but now the 
deacons do not preach publicly " (in populo predicant.) This writer then, 
i? in our favor. 

21* 



246 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

Chrysostom says, " The deacons have need of great wisdom, though the 
preaching of the Gospel is not committed to them." We submit that this 
father means the full right to preach the Gospel : otherwise why mention, 
in this connexion, the " great wisdom " required of deacons ? He does not 
deny their subordinate right to preach or instruct ; his language implies 
no, more than we have stated. This is the true account of the views of 
Chrysostom, as we learn from the late Dr. Wilson, who says (160) that 
this father " has given it as his opinion on Acts vi., that the commission 
was of a special nature, and though their duties were in the first instance 
ministerial, yet they were designed to be preachers, and did go forth as 
such." 

Jerome calls deacons " ministers of tables and widows " — all true— does 
he deny that they were also more 1 No, indeed. The reviewer forgot that 
this father said, "Without the bishop's license, neither presbyter nor deacon 
has a right to baptize ; " with that license, both may do it. He forgot that 
Jerome said, " It is the custom of the Church for bishops to go and invoke 
the Holy Spirit, by imposition of hands, on such as were baptized by 
presbyters and deacons" and that he refers to " the Acts of the Apostles • 
as his authority. He forgot that Jerome calls presbyters priests of the 
inferior degree, and deacons the third degree " of priests. (Cooke, 
§ 154, 247.) 

The Apostolical Constitutions forbid "the deacons to baptize, or admi- 
nister the eucharist, or pronounce the greater or smaller benedictions." Not 
quite accurate : the passage forbids a deacon to " offer " or consecrate the 
eucharist, ov itpooQepet ; but it adds that when the bishop or presbyter has 
i: offered," the deacon " was to distribute it to the people, not as a priest, but 
as the minister of the priests." Another passage speaks of the bishop or 
priest as distributing the bread, and the deacons following with the cup : 
(Potter, 237.) " Let the deacon take the cup, and delivering it let him say, 
' The blood of Christ, the cup of life.' " (Wilson, 282.) As to the prohi- 
bition to baptize, if it be not understood, " without the bishop's license," it 
is at variance with Cyprian*and Jerome, and others to be now adduced, and 
thus it was a mere arbitrary regulation, not founded on Scripture, or the 
earlier rules of the Church. 

This is all the reviewer quotes from the fathers; and it amounts to 
nothing, either through intrinsic insufficiency, or the force of counter state- 
ments, as we have seen. But to settle the point fully, we shall present 
more of this kind of evidence than we have already placed in the scales 
against our learned opponent. 

Polycarp says that deacons are "ministers of God, not of men " — in 
other words, they are " ordained for men in things pertaining to God." 

Ignatius declares that deacons are " intrusted with the ministry of Jesus 
Christ ;"(Magn. 6.) — he declares that they are "the ministers of the 
mysteries of Jesus Christ," and that " they are not the ministers of meat 
and drink, [only,] but of the Church of God " — he regards those who " do 
any thing without the bishop, and presbyters, and deacons ," as "without 
the altar:" of course, deacons belong to the "altar" (Tral. 2, 7.) — he 
regards deacons as " appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ ;" 
they belonged to the ministry as modelled by our Lord himself, and were 
not first invented for the emergency in Acts vi. — he recommends that 
<! some deacon " be ordained to visit his bereaved Church at Antioch, " as 
the ambassador of God " — and he says, " Philo, the deacon of Cilicia, still 
ministers unto me in the word of God." (Philad. Inscrip. and 10, 11.) 
Let these deacons be compared with those of parity, and with ours : of the 
former, Ignatius obviously knew nothing ; with the latter, he was familiar. 

Justin Martyr writes — " Those whom we call deacons give to each of 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 24? 

those who are present a portion of the bread which hath been blessed, and 
of the icine mixed with water." (Apol. 85.) 

Tertuliian declares, " The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right 
of baptizing. After him the presbyters and deacons, not however without 
the permission of the bishop, on account of the honor of the Church." 
(Cooke, § 183.) 

The 34th Apostolical Canon " ordains that the bishop have authority 

over the possessions of the Church so that on his authority all things 

may, by the presbyters and deacons, be administered to the poor." (Prot. 
Epis. v. 3. p. 383.) Presbyters, then, were servants of tables, without pre- 
judice to the spiritual part of their functions. The same of course may be 
affirmed of deacons. Again: the 74th says, "Let a bishop, or presbyter, 

or deacon, engaging in war be deposed." Why might not a deacon, 

if but a lay one. such as those of parity, take a commission, and " engage in 
war 1 " The prohibition shows the full sacredness of the office and duties 
of the deacon mentioned in these Canons. 

The Council of Eliberis, C. 77, — " It is ordained that those who are 
baptized by a deacon, without the bishop or presbyter, shall afterward be 
confirmed by the bishop." Again : " Presbyters and deacons are forbid to 
give the communion to those who had grievously offended, without the 
command of the bishop." (Schol. Arm. i. 99.) 

The Council or Synod of Ancyra allowed, that deacons who lapsed under 
persecution, and afterward repented, might be "received" — "but not 
again to administer the bread or the cup, or to preach Ktipvacuv." 
(Dr. Wilson, 102.) 

The sixth general Council, called duinisextum, (Can. 16,) declared that 
the precedent of the seven deacons " did not affect the number or the office 
of the deacons who ministered in the mysteries" or as Slater translates it, 
(204,) " at the altar of the Church." 

We have now adduced evidence enough of this sort, to overturn all that 
the reviewer has brought forward ; probably all that he ever can. We have 
shown that the whole voice of antiquity, without one clear exception, 
declares the deacons to be, not merely servants of tables, but inferior ministers 
of the word and ordinances. 

II. We proceed to the general argument of the reviewer 
against the claims of Episcopacy, as they are supported in the 
Tract. 

Here we first notice the remark, that, while we affirm the word 
"bishop," as found in Scripture, to refer to presbyters in all 
cases, Dr. Hammond makes both "bishop" and "elder" refer to 
bishops proper ; and supposes the second order, presbyters, to 
have been instituted after the apostolic age. In this opinion, we 
know not that Dr. Hammond has been seconded by any one. 
Neither do we deem his argument on the subject, as given in a 
Note to Acts xi., either conclusive or just. 1. A great portion of 
it, if not the greater portion, is built on the slippery ground of 
mere names of office. Thus, bishop and elder are identified in 
Titus i. ; therefore the elders were bishops proper ; whereas the 
inference is just as good, that the bishops were elders proper. 
Thus again, Clement of Rome says the Apostles ordained some 
of their first converts bishops and deacons 5 ergo, they ordained 
no presbyters ; but as Clement wrote in the first century, his 
use of the word bishop must be understood as in Scripture. 



248 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

2. Because Paul and Barnabas brought the offerings of the 
Church to the "elders" in Judea, and the Apostolical Canons 
assign authority over the church property to bishops, Ham- 
mond argues that these elders were bishops proper. But were 
this granted, it would not follow that there were no presbyters 
in Judea; the only result would be, that "elders" was a general 
designation for the clergy, including all the orders, as appears in 
other passages : the same remark applies to the extracts w iich de- 
clare the " presbytery " in 1 Timothy to have consisted of bishops. 
Besides ; if the apostolical canons are evidence that these eiders 
must have been bishops proper, to entitle them to receive the 
church property, they are equal evidence that the "presbyters" 
of whom they every where speak, were known to Scripture ; for, 
deny that presbyters, being found in these canons, must be 
found also in the New Testament, anl it may equally be denied, 
that their setting forth Episcopal authority over the sacred 
treasury, is a proof that the scriptural elders, having charge of 
it, held the Episcopal office : the reference, therefore, to these 
canons, either establishes the inspired institution of presbyters, 
or else renders nugatory the allegation that the elders in ques- 
tion were bishops proper ; and whichever of these be the result, 
it is fatal to Dr. Hammond's argument. 3. The only explicit 
authorities he adduces, are Epiphanius, of the fifth century, and 
the Greek Scholiasts. The former says, that when the Apostles^ 
i at the beginning of their preaching," found " those that were 
fit for it, bishops were constituted ; but while there was no mul- 
titude of Christians, there were found none among them to be 
constituted presbyters : " but these latter notions are fallacious ; 
" multitudes " were usually converted in every place, and so 
there was a fair opportunity to select presbyters ; and that per- 
sons fit to be bishops could be found, and none fit to be presby- 
ters, is incredible on its very face. In a subsequent part of the 
note, Epiphanius is quoted for "Timothy's power over the 
presbyters." The other authority affirms, "The Apostle left 
Titus to constitute bishops, having first made him bishop ;" and 
therefore the elders mentioned in Titus were all bishops proper, 
nolle of them presbyters: but this conclusion does not follow,* 
it satisfies the language to say, that the Scholiasts included both 
orders, as many do, under the appellation "bishops" or "elders." 
4. The rest of Hammond's note is but construing' the sacred and 
other writers according to his theory. 

Against this theory we adduce several fatal objections. 1. We 
have shown it to be highly probable, far more probable than 
the theory before us, that "the twelve" were presbyters in 
fact, though without the name, before our Lord's death. 2. If 
we adhere to the authorized translation, "elders in every 
church," (Acts xiv.,) there were several in each church, which 
is inconsistent with the idea that they were bishops. 3. The 
elders sent for from Ephesus are called "the elders of the 
ehurch," (Acts xx.,) one church again, with many elders, a 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 249 

fact irreconcileable with the theory of their episcopal char- 
acter. 4. When Paul and his company were received by 
James at Jerusalem, the day following their arrival, " all 
the elders were present;" (Acts xxi. ;) all the bishops of 
Judea, James being their metropolitan, argues Dr. Hammond: 
but is it credible, that all the bishops of all Judea could have 
been summoned to meet Paul, and have reached Jerusalem 
" the day following" his arrival in that city? no, they were 
elders on the spot, presbyters under James. 5. Paul mentions 
to the Corinthians their " ten thousand instructers in Christ," 
their " ministers of Christ," and desires these to " take heed iiow 
they builded" on his foundation: is such language consistent 
with the opinion that the Corinthian church had no presbyters? 
6. To "the church of the Thessalonians," the one church, 
Paul says, " Know them whicli labor among you, and are over 
you in the Lord :" several ministers in one church — were they 
all bishops ? the supposition is incongruous. 7. Titus is 
charged to "ordain elders in every city," a plurality in each 
city, the authorized translation being the judge; were they all 
bishops proper? no, for the same reason. 8. So of the church 
at Pnilippi, it had its " bishops and deacons," a 'plurality of the 
former as much as of the latter ; they surely were no more 
than presbyter-bishops; though not called ; elders,' they must 
have been of that grade. 9. James desires the sick to " send 
for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him,'' 7 &c. ; 
if " the church" means the particular congregation to which 
the sick man belonged, there were several called elders in that 
one congregation ; if it means the diocese, there were several in 
one diocese ; and both suppositions are fatal to the theory 
before us : if the bishops of several dioceses were meant, then 
Ihey must assemble from various distances to pray over and 
"anoint" a sick person; which is a supposition wholly out of 
proportion, and which, if miraculous cures were frequent, must 
have withdrawn the bishops from their proper functions, to be 
constantly travelling about in company among the sick of the 
dioceses in their respective neighborhoods. The only rational 
construction is, that these elders were presbyters, and also 
perhaps deacons. 10. The Saviour rebuked the "seven angels" 
of the Asiatic churches personally, not by St, John as if the 
metropolitan of those bishops, but merely as His secretary ; and 
this shows that he was not their metropolitan, as is by some 
imagined. It is also a strong argument against there having 
been any such functionaries so early as the scheme before us 
requires. And when to this is added the fact, that each of 
these " angels " is separately addressed, not through him of 
Ephesus, it is clear that the latter was not their metropolitan, 
as is presumed by Hammond in regard to Timothy, and as is 
essential to make the "bishops" spoken of in 1 Timothy bishops 
proper, placed under him as their archbishop; without this 
further hypothesis his theory must fall. But it is plain, from 



250 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

what has been said, that there was no archbishop in Ephesus, 
even so late as the year 96; of course, none was there in 65; 
and thus the "bishops" mentioned at this earlier date, as 
governed by Timothy, yet without his having metropolitan- or 
archiepiscopal rank, could have been only presbyters. 

We have sufficiently refuted, we trust, this opinion of Dr. 
Hammond, who, learned as he was, does, like Jupiter himself, 
occasionally "nod:" accordingly, he has not been followed in 
this matter by any writer known to us. We have shown also, 
we hope, that his theory is not so sustained as to present the 
least objection to the rule, that, the "bishops" so called in 
Scripture, are always to be accounted presbyters. That they 
had a superior over them, our Tract has shown. And we now 
proceed with the further remarks we have to make on the 
review of that production. 

These will be much abridged by our having already offered a 
sufficient exposure of this review, or sufficient replies to most 
of its arguments. 1. We have exposed its tone of positive 
assertion, of refuting propositions made by no one, and of 
derogation from the intelligence or the candor of Episcopalians. 
Take these away, and there will remain but little that has even 
the semblance of reasoning. 2. The apostleship of Timothy, 
which this reviewer denies, has been sufficiently proved in our 
answers to the Rev. Mr. Carries. Our readers, of course, do not 
wish to traverse that ground again. And if the reviewer still 
feels interest enough in the subject, to honor with his perusal 
our piece in the last Protestant Episcopalian, he can judge for 
himself whether we are over sanguine in our estimate of it. One 
new remark, however, we perceive, and will answer it briefly — 
apostles are " distinguished " from evangelists ; Timothy is 
called an evangelist; and this "precludes the possibility of 
our considering " him as an apostle. Now, the rule is, that the 
greater office includes the less, both being the same in kind ; 
i^ therefore, the evangelists were officers, the apostles, being 
higher officers, were evangelists also, as they were elders like- 
wise, and deacons; while yet mere deacons, elders and evange- 
lists were not apostles — Timothy was both an apostle and an 
evangelist. Jf, however, evangelists were not officers, as such, 
the objection of the reviewer vanishes. Apostles are "distin- 
guished" from " prophets," and from " teachers ;" yet Paul the 
apostle is called both a prophet and a teacher in Acts xiii. So 
much for the reviewer's positiveness — " precludes the possi- 
bility !" 3. His earnest plea, that bishops do not succeed to 
the extraordinary powers or privileges of the Apostles, we 
have already shown to be a refutation of what nobody, no 
Protestant at least, affirms. And his repetition of the fancy, 
that none but the special witnesses of the resurrection could be 
apostles, he will find disposed of in our answers to Mr. Barnes. 
To adduce Dr. Barrow for this notion, is to make him appear 
to maintain what in fact he does not; that divine argues 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 251 

against the Romanists, that the thirteen principal Apostles had 
certain privileges which did not and could not descend by 
succession, and that thus the pope, arrogating some of these 
privileges, arrogates what does not belong to him ; for in this 
sense, St. Peter had no successors. But that bishops inherit 
the ordinary rights of the Apostles Dr. Barrow expressly allows, 
even to " a universal sovereign authority, commensurate to an 
apostle : " he quotes Cyprian as " affirming that the bishops do 
succeed St. Peter and the other Apostles by vicarious ordina- 
tion ; that the bishops are apostles" — and as saying that "in 
Episcopacy doth reside the sublime and divine power of 
governing the Church, it being the sublime top of the priest- 
hood." (p. 125, 193.) Let not Dr. Barrow be misunderstood ; 
he says not one word, either directly or indirectly, in favor of 
parity. 4. On the " superiority of the ministerial power and 
rights" of the apostles over elders, we remarked — after showing 
the untenableness of other theories — that it " would not be 
questioned." The reviewer starts at the assertion ; and well he 
may, for it leads to the inevitable demolition of his theory of 
presbyterial " power and rights." He recoils, as naturally as 
wisely, and declares, " We certainly, however, do question it." 
Very well — our proposition is questioned — by whom ? by the 
reviewer — we must subtract a unit from our sum total — we 
stand 1000 instead of 1001. Mr. Barnes does not deny it, so far 
as we perceive. Calvin asserts what we say " will not be 
questioned;" the Divines in the Isle of Wight assert it; 
Matthew Henry asserts it; Dr. Campbell asserts it; Dr. Miller 
asserts it; the late Dr. Wilson 'asserts it. All this the 
reader will find in our replies to Mr. Barnes. We- now add 
Poole's Synopsis, Burkitt, and Adam Clarke; which see. And 
we make our stand on this authority, for the declaration "It 
will not be questioned," till a name is given us which will 
show that further inquiry is worth our trouble. 5. To our 
second answer to Mr. Barnes we refer, likewise, besides to the 
Tract, for a mass of proofs that the text which speaks of " the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery " is enveloped in too 
much doubt, to be made the basis of any argument on the 
question before us. Nay, we refer to this reviewer himself, 
who gives the following abstract of what is said in the Tract on 
this passage, without attempting to refute a single portion of it. 
He is content to put in italics, and so produce a caricature 
coloring, some of the words which we shall give in plain letters, 
that the argument may be seen unperverted ; he is content to 
call it a "wonderful jingle of words," "inferences perfectly 
inconsequential and unwarranted ;" but as to reasoning against 
it, that the reviewer leaves untried. Here is the abstract; we 
thank him for it; we adopt it, except the unauthorized expres- 
sions which we place in brackets, and have only to request 
our readers to go for its proofs and illustrations to the Tract 
itself. 



252 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

" It cannot be proved that the Apostle, when he speaks of the * hands of 
the presbytery ' being laid on Timothy, refers to his ordination at all. It 
is [perhaps,] more probable, that it refers to his being set apart to a special 
[and temporary] service : or it may be understood to mean, (if it does refer 
to his ordination) that he was set apart, by the laying on of hands, to ' the 
'presbyter ate? that is, to the office of presbyter. Yet, even if this be supposed, 
as the title of presbyter, as used in the New Testament, means any thing 
and every thing in ecclesiastical office, it may be here construed to mean 
something higher than a mere presbyter, strictly speaking; [therefore] 
there is at least as much evidence that it means a prelate as a presbyter. 
Besides, for any thing; we know to the contrary, the 'presbytery' which 
officiated on this occasion, ' may have consisted of apostles only, or of one or 
more apostles joined with others ; ' as the Apostle speaks, in another place, 
of having laid his own hands on Timothy. If this be so, it cannot of 
course be claimed as a Presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. We 
may be considered, then, as having proved, that presbyters alone did not 
perform the ordination, granting the transaction to have been one ; but that 
an apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body 
called a • presbytery.' It is also worthy of notice, that St. Paul makes the 
following distinction in regard to his own agency and that of others in this 
supposed ordination, ' by the putting on of my hands ' — ' with the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery.' Such a distinction may justly be 
regarded as intimating that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from 
Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body, if he were included in 
it, expressed only consent. On the whole, the language here used requires 
us to believe that a minister of higher rank than an ordinary presbyter 
was present and officiated in this ordination — or what is said to be the 
ordination of Timothy. At any rate, the Episcopal theory is at least as 
good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word ' presbytery ; ' and 
considering the above distinction of ' by ' and ' with/ our theory is obviously 
the better of the two." 

" It is doubtful whether either of these [famous] passages refers to the 
ordination of Timothy or not. If either or both have such a reference, they 
[* admit of an interpretation quite as favorable to prelacy as to parity ; ] 
therefore, as [some] other passages of Scripture [seem to] wear an aspect 
[more] favorable to prelacy [than parity,] we are bound to interpret these — 
which are acknowledged to be [still more] doubtful — in the same way." 

Perfectly astonished we were to find such a train of argument 
against the chief text for parity — distorted even as it was with 
sly additions and italics — in a defence of that form of the minis- 
try. And if all the readers of the Biblical Repertory are not of 
the "less-informed" class, there will certainly be some partici- 
pation in our surprise, among those who can distinguish between 
an argument and the perversion of it, and who are not overborne 
by sweeping positiveness. Such readers will observe, that not a 
syllable of reasoning is offered against this abstract — not one. 
The grand text for Presbyterians is left unextricated from the 
dark accumulations of doubt, which make it unfit to be brought 
into the discussion — accumulations, which we have pretty largely 
exhibited in our reply to Mr. Barnes, and to which the reviewer 
himself has added, by this almost faithful copy of some of them 

* Our assertion was, tliey are " more consistent with Episcopacy." 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY/ SCRIPTURE. 253 

from our Tract, with no weightier objection against them, than 
some touches of misrepresentation and caricature, and the arro- 
gant assertion that they should " be driven from any enlightened 
and impartial tribunal on earth, as unworthy of an answer." 

One of the main holds of parity on Scripture is thus left unsup- 
ported by the reviewer. As little protection is extended by him 
to the only other two scriptural expositions attempted in its 
behalf. The " transaction at Antioch " — in Acts xiii., which has 
often been represented as a Presbyterian ordination, but which 
Mr. Barnes ingenuously declares not to have been an ordination 
of any kind, and which Dr. Miller, in his late Tract, seems also 
to surrender— this "transaction," though dwelt upon largely in 
" Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," the reviewer passes by in 
perfect silence. And, if silence gives consent, we must conclude 
that he cannot gainsay our reasoning on the case. The third 
allegation from Scripture, in favor of parity — that in the acts 
of ordination there clearly recorded, a plurality of ordainers offi- 
ciated — the reviewer notices not except once, merely in passing. 
The allegation is good for nothing : because — 1. The ordainers 
in those cases were all apostles, which fact gives no support, but 
rather is opposed, to the exercise of that function by mere pres- 
byters; 2. The right to ordain is recognised as existing in 
Timothy and Titus individually ; and, 3. It follows that it exist- 
ed in all the apostles individually. So much for the "plurality " 
argument. And so much for all the three arguments — the only 
three— that our Presbyterian brethren think they find for their 
ministry, in the holy volume. 

The reviewer would enlighten us on the distinction between 
atooToUq (apostle) in "the official, and the lax or general sense 
of this term " — adding, that " the learned translators of our 
English Bible, though themselves zealous Episcopalians, seldom 
fail to recognise" this distinction. Very well. Have we used 
the word " apostle" in any passage of Scripture where the trans- 
lators have not given it? no, not once, in any part of our own 
argument. We call Barnabas an apostle, beeause the translators 
give him that designation, twice positively, and twice, at least, 
by implication. (Acts xiv. 4, 14; Gal. ii. 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5,6.) 
We call Silvanus and Timothy apostles, because the translators 
do so. (1 Thess. ii. 6.) We call Andronicus and Junia [or 
Junias] apostles, for the same reason, under a fair construction 
of the passage.* (Rom. xvi. 7.) We speak of the "false 
apostles" by that title, with the same authority of the trans- 
lators. (2 Cor. xi. 13; Rev. ii. 2.) Let the reviewer, and his 
Presbyterian friends, adhere to this rule, as we have done, and 
there will be so much less remaining of the controversy. 
Besides : when Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy are called 
apostles, they are so called in conjunction with Paul ; which 
shows the three former to have been apostles officially, as the 

* Add, for this, Buck's Dictionary, and Selden, as quoted by Wolfius. 
22 



254 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVrEW OF 

latter was. So with regard to the false apostles: these, after 
comparing himself with " the very chiefest Apostles," Paul con- 
trasts with "the Apostles of Christ:" they claimed this desig- 
nation in the same official sense that it belonged to Paul and all 
others who had the genuine apostolic character. Instead of 
meeting us on this view of the point, the reviewer argues against 
regarding as apostles those whom the translators call " messen- 
gers " — a topic which our disquisition has not touched. On the 
apostleship of Barnabas, and the case of the false apostles, he 
does not argue at all. 

We drew a comparison, in our Tract, between the address of 
Paul to the elders of Ephesus, and his epistles to Timothy, 
showing that while the former were to " tend," i. e. feed and 
rule the jlock, the latter was to rule them, and ordain ethers 
like them. What is the reply of the reviewer ? He says, " We 
might have expected great diversity in the mode of address in 
these two cases, because the circumstances of the persons 
addressed were essentially different." Let this be noted — there 
is " great diversity " between the address and the epistles. 
What was the reason for it? because "circumstances" were 
"essentially different:" because Timothy was an apostle-bishop 
say we ; because he was an " evangelist," says the reviewer — 
the old plea revived which Mr. Barnes so honestly and judi- 
ciously avoided. Must we open again, then, the argument on 
this futile plea ? We deem it unnecessary to do so, after what 
we have written in the postscript and notes to the Tract, and in 
our replies to Mr. Barnes.* We will only notice one point in 
which the reviewer has miserably exposed himself. He goes 
to Eusebius, and quotes what relates to the migratory part of 
the duties of evangelists, and their ordaining; but he omits to 
quote — what? the very hinge of the appeal to this father's 
authority. These evangelists " obtained," says Eusebius, " the 
first step ra&v of apostolical succession," according to the transla- 
tion used for our Tract, or according to Mr. Cruse, (p. 123,) 
they " held the first rank ra^tv in the apostolic succession." 
What shall we think of the boldness of a writer who makes 
such an omission, with the Tract before him, and in the hands 
of thousands ! and with Eusebius before him, for he gives a yet 
different translation! it is enough to rouse the honest indigna- 
tion of even the least "informed" of his readers. And what 
shall we think of a writer, who, with this sin of omission, a 
downright suppressio veri, fresh on his conscience, swallows it 
fearlessly, and then lifts loftily his head, and ascribes " evasion 



*Scultetus, from Zuinglius, regards an evangelist as a [presbyter] bishop or 
pastor. (Po. Syn. on 2 Tim. iv. 5.) Piscator calls Philip the Evangelist merely a 
preacher of the Gospel, " prczco evangelii;" and regards those in Eph. iv., and 
2 Tim. iv. as the same. (Do. on Acts xxi.) Aretius on this passage says, "These 
appear to be ministers of particular churches, and teachers of the schools : which 
Pantenus was, Basilius, and others." A. Clarke (On 2 Tim. iv.) allows evangelists 
to have been only preachers. All these authorities are Non-episcopalian. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 255 

and management," and " undertaking to dispose of the plain 
record," to his opponent! There are not many theologians 
who would do all this. 

The reviewer allows a " great diversity " between the address 
to the elders and the epistles to Timothy; he allows that the 
"circumstances" of the two parties were " essentially different." 
But he alleges that " Timothy was obviously sent on a tempo- 
rary mission," to "rectify disorders," &c, in a "collected and 
officered flock." Notice here — the church of Ephesus was 
" officered," had presbyters — it was fully constituted, on the 
Presbyterian theory. Farewell then to the old plea, that it had 
no clergy when Timothy was placed there, ahd that he was 
thus stationed to ordain clergy for the church, and then leave it 
to Presbyterial government/ They had Presbyterial govern- 
ment already, says the reviewer, and Timothy was sent with 
evangelical government, so called, to "rectify disorders." — 
Now, if Presbyterial government is liable to fall into "disorder," 
and is without the intrinsic power to " rectify " it — so glaringly 
deficient, as to require the superinduction on it of another kind 
of government exercised by one individual put in authority 
over the presbyters-— then there is a most weighty presumption 
against its being the one chosen by Christ or his Apostles — and 
there is a presumption equally strong, that the so-called evan- 
gelical government, that of an officer superior to presbyters, 
must rather have been the one they instituted, seeing it was 
used by them, the reviewer being judge, as a remedy for the 
mischiefs arising under the other supposed form. The lia- 
bility of churches to "disorder" is not "temporary," it is 
perpetual; and actual "disorder" frequently occurs: is it 
probable, then, that the remedy for it would be " temporary ? " 
No; what the reviewer calls government by "evangelists" is 
necessary in all ages, and was to endure through all ages. 
What else is meant by the injunction on Timothy to "keep 
his commandment," or fulfil his charge, " till the appear- 
ing of our Lord Jesus Christ?" Have the Presbyterians any 
such officer as Timothy — an " evangelist" with power over the 
presbyters of an " organized church," of a " collected and 
officered flock," or over such a church itself? no, nothing like 
it. They send their "evangelists" into " destitute settlements," 
and like places — not into the Synod of Philadelphia, or 
either of its presbyteries, be their "disorder" ever so great. 
The reviewer says they have the "evangelists" of Eusebius — 
we think otherwise — but at all events they have not the " evan- 
gelists " supposed to be found in Holy Scripture — such officers 
as Timothy was. Let them make the experiment — let the 
General Assembly send an "evangelist" into the Synod of 
Philadelphia— let the Synod of Philadelphia send an " evange- 
list " into either of its presbyteries — to "charge some that they 
teach no other doctrine," to have supreme authority in ordain- 
ing presbyter-bishops and deacons, to " command and teach " 



256 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

concerning the doctrines to be inculcated, to " receive accusations 
against elders," to " rebuke" those of them "that sin," to "turn 
away" authoritatively from the perverse, and to "keep this 
commandment until the appearing of Christ" — let such an 
" evangelist " be sent into any synod or any presbytery of the 
Presbyterian communion, and every member of them will 
regard the mission as an insult, as an infringement of their 
rights, as an attempt to "lord it over God's heritage:" send 
your "evangelist," they will exclaim, where Eusebius says he 
should go, not where Scripture declares Timothy to have 
been sent— ^to " destitute settlements," not to " organized and 
officered" churches. Try this experiment, and we shall see 
the fallacy of this whole Presbyterian argument— the alleged 
"evangelist" of Scripture will be rejected, as positively as 
bishops are, and Eusebius, as they would read him, will be 
honored over the head of Paul. The reviewer also will disco- 
ver his egregious mistake, in saying, "There is nothing repre- 
sented in Scripture as enjoined upon Timothy and Titus, or as 
done by them, which is not perfectly consistent with Presbyte- 
rian principle and practice." How luckless an assertion ! " per- 
fectly consistent ! ! " O most positive reviewer ! 

Be "evangelists" what they may, Presbyterians do not send 
them to "organized and officered" churches, with authority 
over the clergy. Timothy was sent to such a church, the 
reviewer being judge, and with such authority. Therefore 
Timothy was not an " evangelist" of the Presbyterian kind. 

Be " evangelists" what they may, Timothy and other officers 
like him, were to exercise such authority " till the appearing of 
our Lord Jesus Christ." This is a final condemnation of the 
fancy, that such an office as that of Timothy was but "tempo- 
rary." What answer does the Presbyterian give the Quaker, 
alleging that the visible eucharist was but a "temporary" insti- 
tution? he replies, We are to "show the Lord's death till he 
come" What answer, then, will the Presbyterian give the 
Episcopalian, when, to confute the notion that Timothy's office 
was a "temporary" one, he appeals to the solemn charge of 
Paul, " Keep this commandment till the Lord appears?" What 
answer to this ! The argument was advanced in a note to the 
Tract ; but neither Mr. Barnes nor this reviewer has seen fit to 
notice it. " Expressive silence !" 

As to the objection that Paul says nothing of a bishop proper, 
or rather of the want of one, to the Ephesian elders — why should 
he have done so ? His leaving them did not deprive them of the 
apostolical Episcopacy, as exercised at large —and this they 
knew very well. Episcopacy as exercised by restraint, each 
bishop having his particular diocese, was only another arrange- 
ment of the same ministry. James was bishop of the diocese 
of Jerusalem. With this exception, we read, perhaps, of no 
dioceses till the special connection of Timothy with Ephesus, of 
Titus with Crete, and of the ' seven angels ' with their respective 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 257 

churches. And even if these nine are not allowed to have been 
diocesans, it still is no proof that they were not bishops proper. 
That proof we derive from the record of their powers; and those 
powers were theirs fully and for life, whether exercised in any 
one place for a week, or for " many months," or for "years," or 
till they descended to the tomb. They had the "prelaiical char- 
acter ;" the question whether they exercised it under diocesan 
restrictions, is one of no moment whatever in our controversy 
with Non-episcopalians— -it concerns not them, but only our own 
communion. The point is — Do we find bishops proper in Scrip- 
ture ? And this our Tract has fully settled. 

" But did either Timothy or Titus ever, in a single instance, 
perform the work of ordination alone?" asks the reviewer. 
Really we do not know: but should we ever see the first epis- 
copal records of the Ephesian and Cretan churches, w r e will give 
him the information. These records being lost, neither he nor 
we can say whether they "ever, in a single instance," ordained 
alone, or whether they " ever" ordained at all. But this we can 
say — the power of ordaining was given to them, and to them 
individually — "Lay thou hands suddenly on no man " — " the 
same commit thou to faithful men" — "that thou shouldest 
ordain elders in every city " — "this charge I commit unto thee." 
Such scriptures, one would think, are plain enough. Not, how- 
ever, to the reviewer. He replies, " We know that Mark was 
with Timothy, and that Zenas and Apollos were with Titus. 
Who can tell but that these ecclesiastical companions took part 
in every ordination ? " Without meaning to be over positive, we 
"can tell" the reviewer about this matter, provided he will be 
content with evidence only, without theory. Thus: when Paul 
was in Rome the first time, he expected Mark to go from thence 
to Colosse ; after this, he placed Timothy at Ephesus ; and yet 
later, he desired Timothy to " take Mark, and bring him " with 
him to Rome, where Paul again was, (Col. iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 3- 
2 Tim. iv. 11)— "in thy way call on Mark," says Macknight — 
"take the first opportunity of engaging the company of Mark," 
says Doddridge : the evidence is, that Mark was to go to Colosse, 
and that Timothy went to Ephesus — separate stations — and that 
Timothy was to " take Mark," probably either on his way, or by 
sending for him, in again visiting Rome. Does this evidence 
justify the positive assertion, " we know that Mark was with 
Timothy ? " or the insinuation that the former " took part " with 
the latter "in every, ordination?" Surely not. Thus again, 
concerning Titus : do we " know " that Zenas and Apollos were 
with him 1 The only evidence is this direction to Titus, (iii. 13,) 
"Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey dili- 
gently ;" this "journey" or voyage, is interpreted of one which 
began before their reaching Crete, on their way to some further 
point; so say Doddridge and Macknight, and no commentator 
within our reach says otherwise ; of course they were " with 
Titus" only while they halted on their journey, and could not 
22* 



258 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

have " taken part" in his " every ordination," if they did in even 
one. Timothy and Titus had the power to ordain singly, with- 
out assistants : whether they allowed the other clergy to take part 
with them "ever, in a single instance," or in many instances, 
or as a general rule, we know not; neither is it of any conse- 
quence. Perfect as was the ordaining power in them, and per- 
fect as it is in their successors " till the appearing of Jesus 
Christ," it is proper to regulate the exercise of it, lest it be 
abused ; hence the regulation which requires a plurality to lay 
on hands, except in the case of deacons, who however are 
" presented " by a priest, and who preach only in virtue of a 
license given and revocable by the bishop.* But were we to 
take the reviewer at his word, in the case of Zenas and Apollos, 
he would find that he has weakened his cause in one part, while 
attempting to strengthen it in another. Presbyterians generally 
argue that there were no clergy in Crete when Titus was left 
there, and that he was to ordain them as an " evangelist," for 
lack of a " presbytery " on the island. The reviewer, however, 
has found a Cretan " presbytery " — Zenas and Apollos — both of 
them, we doubt not, very capable men. Yet the superior officer, 
Titus, is placed there, to eclipse the " presbytery," and take the 
government and ordinations in his own hands ! Very strange, 
on " Presbyterian principles ! " 

The epistles to Timothy and Titus "are addressed to them 
individually " — this the reviewer allows. But he does not think 
that this circumstance "affects his reasoning" in behalf of parity. 
Let us examine his argument an this point. — " These men went 
to Ephesus and Crete as a kind of special envoy s? and the 
epistles were "the system of instructions addressed to them 
personally : " this must be noted. Next, — " a Presbyterian ordi- 
nation never occurs without addressing to the newly-ordained 
minister language of precisely the same import:" then the 
minister, we must infer, is "a kind of special envoy" to some 
"officered" church, not a mere pastoral elder ! bis office must 
correspond with his "instructions!" and he is instructed per- 
sonally to "charge some" presbyters "that they teach no other 
doctrine:" personally he is instructed about ordaining, and 
receiving accusations against presbyters ! if not, if he is told 
how to do these things in conjunction with others, not personally, 
then it is deception to say, that "language" is addressed to him 
"of precisely the same import" with that addressed to Timothy 
and Titus. Further : our argument from this personal mode of 
address, says the reviewer, "will prove too much, for it will 

prove that these evangelists alone were empowered to preach 

_ § 

* By the way, what are the licentiates of Presbyterians, but a quasi sort of preach- 
ing deacons — cultivating, under a revocable license, the "great boldness" in declar- 
ing "the faith" — and "purchasing to themselves the good degree" of presbyters ? 
How expressive an acknowledgment, though a silent one, of the soundness of the 
Episcopal construction of 1 Tim. iii. 13 ! This is an after-thought, or it would have 
been introduced in the proper place. 



/ 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 259 

and pray" in Ephesus and Crete: the remark is probably inad- 
vertent : for not once is either Timothy or Titus directed to 
"pray;" not once, though the former is desired to regulate the 
public prayers, and the charge to superintend the "teaching " 01 
others, shows that others besides Timothy and Titus were to 
"preach ;" such, for example, as the "elders who labored in the 
word and doctrine:" the reviewer ought not to nod with his 
Bible before him. His last reply to our argument from the per- 
sonal style of the epistles, is, that " no evangelist is ever sent forth 
by [his] church for the purpose of organizing and setting in 
order churches, without special instructions, in the form of a 
letter, and addressed to him personally:" the alleged evangelists 
of Eusebius again ! not officers like Timothy, sent to churches 
" collected, organized, officered, regular ! " To evangelists such 
as Eusebius is said to describe, any thing may be addressed, 
in any way, without affecting the scriptural argument for 
Episcopacy. 

He adds, that nothing is said to the clergy of Ephesus and 
Crete < ( about prelates, their rights," &c., and "they are never 
even once reminded that it is their duty to be docile and obedient 
to their proper diocesan." Now, there is just as little said about 
the " special envoy," and of docility and obedience to him, as 
about the " prelate," and dutiful submission to his godly injunc- 
tions : so that if the objection of the reviewer is worth any 
thing, it demolishes the superior "rights" of Timothy and 
Titus in every shape! he throws down his own theory to 
make a barricade for annoying ours ! But he is wholly in 
error. A " prelate " is largely and plainly described in these 
epistles — a church officer higher than all the other church 
officers about him. And the charge to him to govern is, con- 
versely, a charge to them to be governed, to be " docile and 
obedient" to him. In short, these epistles are the broad and 
clear credentials of Episcopacy— of the "rights" of apostle- 
bishops — and, by consequence, of the inferior privileges of 
presbyter-bishops and deacons. They show what these three 
orders were in apostolic days, and what they are to continue to 
be " till the appearing of our Lord," 

The reviewer says that we have not " proved that the second 
epistle to Timothy was addressed to him at Ephesus at all." 
No; we did not in the Tract: nor is it necessary to do so for 
the episcopal argument, though the point has a bearing on the 
diocesan argument; for there were, and may always be, apostle- 
bishops or prelates not diocesans; just as there are missionary 
presbyters without parishes, or schoolmaster presbyters, or 
"amateur" presbyters, as they have lately been most happily 
dubbed. But to satisfy the reviewer, or at least our readers, 
that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had charge of it, when the 
second epistle was written to him, we offer the following rea- 
sons: — 1. He was in that city at the date of the first epistle, 
A. D, 65; and there is no intimation that he had left it at the 



260 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

date of the second, A. D. 66;* this throws the burden of proof 
on those who deny that he was there at the latter period. 

2. Timothy being placed at Ephesus to remedy great "disor- 
ders," it is not probable he would leave it before the end of a 
year, when the second epistle was written : we here meet the 
reviewer on his own ground ; even if his mission were a 
"temporary" one, he could not have accomplished it so soon. 

3. Paul, as was not unusual with him, names the messenger by 
whom he transmits the second epistle, to Timothy, and says 
that he had despatched him to Ephesus; " Tychicus have I 
sent to Ephesus : " this argument is indeed cavilled at by some, 
but those who will compare the passage with those referred to 
below, will, we think, deem it conclusive in our favor* (2 Tim. 
iv. 12, See also Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. 
viii. 16-18 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; Philip, ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7-9 ; Philem. 12 ; 
also 1 Pet. v, 12.) 4. Paul, in the second epistle, desires Timo- 
thy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and the residence of 
this excellent person was in Ephesus, though he himself ap- 
pears to have been absent from it at that time. (2 Tim. iv. 19 ; 
comp. ch. i. 16-18.) In Acts xix. 33, we find a certain Alex- 
ander at Ephesus; and in the second epistle we find Timothy 
put on his guard against the same person : why ? because 
Timothy's sphere of duty then included that city. 6. In the 
first epistle, when Timothy was confessedly at Ephesus, Paul 
mentions this Alexander, and also Hymeneus, as unfaithful 
ministers ; and in the second he again names those very per- 
sons to Timothy in the same character; which implies that 
Timothy was still in authority in that church. (1 Tim. i. 20; 
2 Tim. ii. 17; iv. 14.) 7. Against this Alexander, a resident of 
Ephesus, though just then in Rome, opposing virulently the 
persecuted Paul, that apostle specially cautions Timothy in the 
second epistle; from which fact we gather — that Timothy was 
to return to Ephesus, after visiting Paul in Rome — and was to 
continue in Ephesus, when Alexander had come back, and had 
resumed his actual residence there. (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15, 9.) 
Such are our proofs that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had 
charge of its church at the date of the second epistle. And we 
think that the man who asks more, for a point of sacred his- 
tory not positively recorded, is unreasonable. Out of the 
sacred records, the whole current of antiquity is well known to 
be in our favor. Nor is there a particle of evidence against us. 
The New Testament leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian 
church ; no subsequent authority removes him thence ; and 
in this state of things we recognise plainly a diocese, and 
its diocesan head — not only Episcopacy, but diocesan Episco- 
pacy also. 

As to the "angels" of the seven Asiatic churches, the re- 
viewer is as unfortunate in discussing their case, as in the rest 

* We take the common chronology. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 261 

of his remarks. He mentions the theory, that the term " angel n 
means " the collective ministry in those churches respectively" 
— a mere theory, and too fanciful to be worth an argument; 
for it may as well be extended to the "collective" communicants, 
a theory too which decides nothing ; for the " collective minis- 
try " may as justly be said to have included a bishop proper as 
to have been without one.* But further, asks the reviewer, 
why are not the "angels" called apostles or bishops, if they 
were such ? For a very sufficient reason, we reply. These 
"angels" were addressed just at the time, when, as we learn 
from other sources, the name of apostle was about being relin- 
quished to those individuals so called in Scripture, and the 
name bishop was in transitu from the second order to the first; 
the former title was losing, or beginning to lose, its more 
general application ; and the latter had not yet acquired its 
final appropriation. Those who allow the due weight to the 
Non-episcopal authorities, Videlius for example, not to mention 
those in our own ranks, who regard it as an historical fact, 
that the name bishop was taken from the second order and 
given to the first about this period, will see in these scriptures a 
beautiful adminiculation of the testimony of that fact. The 

* Polycarp was the bishop or " angel n of the church in Smyrna, a few years 
after the date of the Revelation, perhaps at that time ; and he is identified with 
his church by Ignatius, just as the "angel" is, by "the Spirit," in this part 
of Scripture. Ignatius says to the Smyrneans, (ii.) " It is fitting that for the 
honor of Gop, your church should appoint some worthy delegate, who being 

come as far as Syria , may rejoice with them that ye send some one 

from you." And to Polycarp, (7.) "It will be fit, most worthy Polycarp, to 
call a council of the most godly men, and choose some one whom ye particularly 

loye and to appoint him to go into Syria" — and in the conclusion, " I salute 

him who shall be thought worthy to be sent by you into Syria, Grace be ever 
with him, and with Polycarp, who sends him." This individual ruler of the 
church at Smyrna is the one who distinctively and responsibly " sends " the 
messenger, though the "church," and even a "council " of its members, including 
doubtless some of its clergy, the "presbyters and deacons" several times men- 
tioned, unite in the mission. What better uninspired key can be found for the 
epistle of our Lord to the "angel of the church in Smyrna'?" and of course for 
all the seven? In regard to the genuineness of the smaller epistles of Ignatius, a 
plain argument may perhaps be sufficient for those who are not in the habit of 
learned investigations. There are only two sets of works ascribed to Ignatius, the. 
smaller epistles and the larger, which are generally, if not universally, allowed 
to be interpolated, i. e. to have received spurious additions. Now, it is exceedingly 
improbable in the nature of things, that a work of authority should be counterfeited 
more than once — so counterfeited as to make two separate works largely spurious, 
besides the genuine. We do not recollect an instance of the kind. There is 
difficulty in making current any one counterfeit book, because the genuine one 
contradicts it. But when this attempt has succeeded, and the true and false 
copies are both current; then the difficulty of a further attempt is doubled, on 
mere arithmetical principles; and the improbability of its being made is much 
more than doubled, since there can be little motive to adduce an author for a 
third view of a subject, concerning which he has expressed, or been made to 
express, two views already — such an author loses his authority, unless his 
genuine work be restored to its exclusive rights. As then the larger epistles 
arc allowed to be spurious, it is probable in the highest degree, morally cer- 
tain, that the smaller epistles are not spurious, but are the genuine work of 
Ignatius. 



262 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 

dignitaries in question were addressed, when it was somewhat 
too late to call them apostles,* and too soon to call them 
bishops, particularly as the latter word had a different meaning 
in the Scriptures already written. Another designation there- 
fore is given them— they are called "angels;" and the kind of 
officers addressed is left to be inferred from the powers and 
distinctions ascribed to them. These remarks are a sufficient 
reply to the argument of the reviewer on this topic; these 
remarks, with what is said in our Tract. But we must show 
him a couple of ludicrous mistakes into which he has fallen. 
He quotes from the address to the " angel" at Smyrna, " Some 
of you I [the Saviour] will cast into prison" — the passage actu- 
ally reads, " Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into pri- 
son!" Again: he regards two at least of the "angels "as having 
long been in a state of " lukewarmness and sloth," and adds, 
"it is by no means likely that, under the eye of inspired Apos- 
tles, men already in this state of moral depression would have 
been selected to preside over churches:" this was in the year 
96; the "inspired Apostles" were long since dead, except 
St. John; and he was in Patmos, when these epistles to the 
"angels" were revealed to him by our Lord! At what time 
these "angels" were respectively placed over their churches, we 
know not; if by "inspired Apostles," it must have been, say 
some twenty or thirty years before. If, however, they were not 
so placed by " inspired Apostles," then we have our Lord himself 
recognising the Episcopacy of men consecrated by apostles 
uninspired. 

Contrary to the rule which we had hoped would be adhered to in this 
controversy, the reviewer has strayed from Scripture, as he did with regard 
to deacons, and carried the question concerning bishops into the writings 
of the fathers. Our lore in this department is of very moderate amount; 
but it fortunately does not require much to answer this reviewer. What he 
ascribes to Ignatius is not correct — that that father declares, " again and 
again, that the presbyters succeed in the place of the Apostles"— such lan- 
guage occurs nowhere in Ignatius.. He never says that presbyters 
" succeed " the Apostles, nor does he compare them to the Apostles, 
except under the reservation that the bishop is compared to a higher 



♦The false "apostles" mentioned (Rev. ii. 2,) would naturally persist in claim- 
ing the old title: that of bishops would not yet have served their purpose. It is 
perhaps worthy of remark, that the word "apostle" occurs nowhere in the gospel 
of St. John; "disciple" being generally substituted "for it. Neither does it occur in 
his epistles : nor in the Revelation; except in this passage, where it is applied to 
the impostors, and in chap, xviii. 20, where, ingrafted into an exultation of the 
latter days, it refers (as in xxi. 14.) to the inspired founders of Christianity. 
All these writings belong to the close of the first century. By not calling the 
<: ansrels " either apostles or bishops, St. John conformed to the then unsettled use 
of those words. And by calling the twelve "disciples" only, instead of apostles, 
he avoided giving them a distinctive title which lie withheld from their official 
compeers, the " angels." We build nothing on these facts and explanations ; but 
they certainly harmonize well with the historical declaration, that ministers of the 
episcopal grade were originally called apostles ; but as the first century was passing 
into the second, that name was relinquished and that of bishops assumed. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 263 

authority. As an Oriental, he uses strong figures; but his meaning 
cannot be mistaken by any candid reader ; and for such we quote what he 
does say, the passages of which the reviewer gives this perverted represen- 
tation. We use Archbishop Wake's translation, revised by Mr. Chevallier. 
" I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord : 
your bishop presiding in the place of God, and your presbyters in the 
place of the council of the Apostles, and your deacons, most dear to me, 
being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." (Magnes. 6 ) 

" It is therefore necessary that ye do nothing without your bishop, 
even as ye are wont: and that ye be also subject to the presbytery as 
to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom if we walk, we shall 
be found (in him.) The deacons also, as being the (ministers) of the 
mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all." (Tral. 2.) 

"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and 
the bishop as the Father ; and the presbyters as the council of God, 
and the assembly of the Apostles. Without these there is no church.'' 
(Tral. 3.) 

" See that ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father ; and 
the presbyters as the Apostles ; and reverence the deacons as the command 
of God. Let no one do any thing which belongs to the Church separately 
from the bishop." (Smyrn. 8.) 

11 Fleeing to the Gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the Apostles 
as unto the presbytery of the Church. Let us also love the prophets, 
forasmuch as they also proclaimed the coming of the Gospel, and hoped in 
Christ, and waited for him." (Philad. 5.) 

Here are all the passages on which the reviewer could possibly have 
based his assertion — all — and they neither say nor intimate any thing 
about " succession." That word is used for either succession in doctrine, 
or succession by vicarious ordination, both of which, when absolute predi- 
cates, imply supreme authority in the successors. And Ignatius would 
have written like a simpleton, if he had ascribed apostolic succession to the 
presbyteTs, when he declared, as he did in these extracts, the bishop to be 
superior to them. But he says not a word of the succession of presby- 
ters ; on the contrary, he invariably, not only in these, but in many other 
passages, places the bishop above that class of ministers, as well as above 
the deacons : and this is fatal to the notion of Presbyterial succession. 
The reviewer has staked his reputation, in more than one sense, in the 
bold assertion he has here made. 

Just as little to the purpose is his allusion to Clement of Rome. He 
speaks of presbyters, says the reviewer, as "the rulers of the Church. " 
Not exactly — only as the rulers of "the flock of Christ;" he never 
intimates that they ruled the clergy. On the contrary, he addresses a 
Christian church — that at Corinth — to this effect, on the subject of their 
" holy offerings." And the address is a full recognition of Episcopacy. 
"God hath himself ordained by his supreme will both where and 

by what persons they are to be performed For to the chief priest 

his peculiar offices are given, and to the priests their own place is 
appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries. And the 
layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen. 
Let every one of you, brethren, bless God in his proper station, with a 
good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service 
that is appointed unto him." (40, 41.) 

If Christians had not their chief priest, their priests, and their Levites, 
there would be no sense in this admonition of Clement's. 

The reviewer's appeal to Irenaeus is as unfortunate — he "repeatedly 



264 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP 

speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles." True ; but 
what sort of presbyters r \ for the word, as we have seen, has a general 
meaning, including apostles and bishops proper, as well as those who are 
only presbyters proper. Irenasus calls the presbyters of whom he writes, 
"bishops,"" and allows only one of them at a time in a city or district, even 
an the large city of Rome ; which shows them to have been apostle bishops, 
superior to the presbyter-bishops. Let him speak for himself 

" We can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles bishops 

in the churches, and their successors even to us whom they [the 

Apostles] left their successors, delivering to them their own place of 

government The blessed Apostles, therefore, founding and 

instructing the church [of Rome,] delivered to Linus [one man] the admi- 
nistration of its bishopric. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the 
epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, [one man,] after him, 
in the third place from the Apostles, Clement [one man] obtained the 

bishopric To this Clement succeeded Evaristus [one man ;] and 

to Evaristus, Alexander [one man ;] and then Sixtus [one man] was 
appointed, the sixth [individual] from the Apostles ; and after him Teles- 
phorus [one man,] who likewise suffered martyrdom most gloriously ; and 
then Hyginus [one man,] then Pius [one man,] after whom Anicetus 
[one man.] And when Soter [one man] had succeeded Anicetus, now 
Eieutherus [one man] has the bishopric in the twelfth place from the 
Apostles. By this order [or series rafa] and instruction, that tradition 
in the Church which is from the Apostles, [meaning Scripture, see 
I. 3, c. 1,] and the preaching of the truth hath come even unto us. ' 

/r n Q \ 

" We ou^ht to hear those presbyters in the Church who have the 
succession, as we have shown, from the Apostles : who with the succession 
of the episcopate received the gift of truth, according to the good pleasure 
of the Father." (L. 4, c. 43.) iV'^MV 

If Irenseus had meant presbyters proper, could he have said, as lie 
does, that he could " enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles 
bishops in the churches, and their successors even to us"— "the succes- 
sions of all the churches V- each and every such presbyter, who had 
officiated in each and every supposed ordaining "presbytery" mall the 
world! say some twenty to fifty thousand of them! The idea is prepos- 
terous. JNo : he intended one minister in each city or district— that one 
who was called bishop— that one to whom the " Apostles " and their 
successors " delivered their own place of government." And that this one 
man had presbyters under him is self-evident in the case of Rome, which 
is denominated by Irenseus "the greatest church:" implying that it had 
many congregations and pastors. It is proved also, by testimony, in the 
case of Poly carp, who is declared by this father to have been " appointed 
by the Apostles, bishop of the church of Smyrna," and who commences his 
epistle thus—" Poly carp and the presbyters that are with him." Of this 
epistle Irenseus speaks : and we thus learn, as from himself, what kind of 
ecclesiastical officers he referred to as " successors to the Apostles." They 
were Episcopal bishops. . . 

We go no further into the extra-scriptural argument, be it noticed, 
than we are led by the reviewer. The reader who wishes to prosecute 
this branch of the subject, will find it ably treated in Potter and Slater, 
whose works have been reprinted in this country, and in Bowden and 
Cooke, as re-published in the " Works on Episcopacy," by the New- York 
Protestant Episcopal Press. The Answer of Dr. Cooke to a Review of his 
essay in the Biblical Repertory, should also be consulted. 



EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 265 

Of the peroration of the reviewer, his last four paragraphs, 
we need only say that it is a mere tissue of positiveness. We have 
neither the taste nor the talent for this kind of effusion, or we 
could take these paragraphs, and send them back upon him, 
mutatis mutandis — as indeed we could do with no small por- 
tion of his whole article. It is throughout so replete with mere 
assertions, pronounced in the most dogmatical tone, that one 
need only change the things asserted, and it would be quite as 
good for Episcopacy as it is against it — nay, for aught we can 
perceive, a little ingenuity in this way, would make it a tirade 
for or against Popery, for or against Independency, for or against 
monarchy, for or against republicanism, for or against transub- 
stantiation, for or against the Hebrew points, for or against any 
thing ever disputed among men. As to the small amount of 
argument it does contain, we trust we have sufficiently disposed 
of it. That such a review lias done our Tract no injury, may, 
we hope, be affirmed by us, without incurring the charge of 
egotism. We even indulge ourselves in the belief, that that 
little production has come out of the ordeal prepared for it 
stronger than it was before — stronger we say, because the fact 
certainly adds to its strength, that the learned " Association of 
Gentlemen in Princeton," have found nothing better against it 
than this very dictatorial but very harmless review. 

23 H. U. O. 



DISSERTATION 

ON THE 

FALSE APOSTLES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 



The case of the " false apostles " has an important bearing 
on the subject of Episcopacy. We argue conclusively, from 
their case — that others besides the special witnesses of the resur- 
rection of Christ were apostles — that there were many apostles 
proper besides these, the thirteen — that inspiration was not 
an essential qualification for the apostleship — and that the ordi- 
nary apostolic office was extensively recognised, both previously 
and so late as the year 96, when of the thirteen none survived 
but St. John. These facts being established, it will be suffi- 
ciently clear that that office pervaded the Church at large, and 
was to be permanent. 

Mention is made of these impostors in three passages of the 
New Testament. 

" For such are false apostles ^t-uZaTro<fro\oi i deceitful workers, trans- 
forming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for 
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no 
great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of right- 
eousness ; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. 
xi. 13-15.) The word "ministers" is Smkovoi. 

" Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles aircoroXovg, and are 
not, and hast found them liars, ^sviets" (Rev. ii. 2.) 

"An apostle, not of an' men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." 
(Gal. i. 1.) 

We can imagine but four ways in which the persons alluded 
to can have pretended to be "apostles" — as special witnesses 
of the resurrection of Christ — as being, not apostles proper, of 
whom we affirm there were many, but " messengers^" so called 
— as having apostolic plenary inspiration, like the thirteen — 
or, as possessing the apostolic office ; not mere presbytership, 
as we shall prove ; but the episcopate proper. On each of 
these four views of their case we offer some remarks. 

1. The theory that the " false apostles" claimed to be special 
witnesses of Christ's resurrection, is not held, in terms, by any 
writer that we know of; yet it must be tacitly allowed by 
those who think they pretended to be apostles proper, and that 
none could be such but the special witnesses. Such a fancy, 
however, will not bear the least investigation. There were 
only thirteen of these witnesses at most — at least one of them, 
James the Greater, was dead when Paul wrote to the Corin- 
ihians against the pretenders, A. D. 60— at least one other 

( 367 ) 



268 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES 

Paul, was personally known to that church, and no one could 
have there feigned to be that apostle — of the alibi of some, if 
not all of t!i i rest, they were douhtless apprized ; and the 
enhance of an i.upostor's being taken for either of them must 
have been too small to illow any hope of success: add to this, 
that Titus had lately been in Corinth ; he knew several of the 
thirteen, and his testimony on such a question of personal 
identity would have been final. When, again, these impostors 
are mentioned at the later period, A. D. 96, only St. John was 
living; and as it was impossible for any pretender to pass 
himself as that one surviving special witness of the resurrec- 
tion, so was it perfectly absurd for several to make the attempt. 
This character, therefore, the "false apostles" did not claim. 
Of course there were other apostles besides the special witnesses, 
with whom they endeavored to rank themselves. 

2. Equally untenable is the supposition, evading the fact of 
there having been many apostles proper, that they pretended to 
be c * messengers" so called, or apostles not in the appropriate 
sense. Twice only are these expressly named, " the messengers 
of the churches," " Epaphroditus, your messenger." (2 Cor. 
viii. 23; Philip, ii. 25.) Not a few writers contend for the trans- 
lation '-apostle" in both these places, in its appropriate mean- 
ing — fatal to the notion that " messeugership " was all these 
impostors claimed. Taking, however, the translation as it 
stands, we find there were "messengers" sent by churches to 
St. Paul. And we will allow, though we do not find it in 
Scripture, that messengers may have been sent by one church 
to another church. We further notice, that Paul despatched 
persons whom we may call messengers, to both churches and 
individuals; as Tychicus to the Ephesians and to Timothy, 
Epaphroditus to the Philippians, Timothy and Erastus to Mace- 
donia, Onesimus to the Colossians and to Philemon, Phebe to 
the Romans, &c. Now, in regard to the first class of these 
persons, it is clear that no one would pretend to be the " mes- 
senger" of a church to an inspired apostle, who could instantly 
detect the fraud. In regard to the next class; it is evident that 
a messenger from one church to another, if there were such 
appointments, could not have had the least authority over the 
latter body ; the mission must have been one of benevolence 
only, or of courtesy : in other words, there was no motive to 
simulate the character. And in regard to the third class; it is 
obvious, that when even a w iman was one of the messengers 
whom St. Paul sent, and to the great church in Rome, there 
could have been nothing in the function to excite the ambition 
of pretender-:. If it be further alleged, that some of Paul's 
messengers were commissioned to rectify disorders in churches, 
and that "false" messengers claimed a kindred authority, we 
reply, that such functionaries could only be sent by those 
thirteen principal Apostles, who, individually, had authority 
over all churches ; so that a successful claim to such a mission 



MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 269 

could scarcely have been made at any time, and certainly was 
next to impossible wlien only St. John remained. We think, 
therefore, that this second theory of the " false apostleship " is 
baseless. Indeed we are not aware that any one expressly 
maintains it: yet, as it is the only hypothesis left to those who 
confine the proper apostleship to the special witnesses of our 
Lord's resurrection, we have deemed it worthy of refutation. 

Let the reader now mark the results of what we have thus 
far presented. The impostors before us did not pretend to be 
mere " messengers," but apostles proper ,« and they did not 
make this pretension as special witnesses of the resurrection of 
the Saviour. They would not, however, claim an office which did 
not exist: therefore, there were apostles proper who were not of 
the number of the special witnesses. Neither would they have 
claimed an office that was not common enough to give their im- 
posture a reasonable chance of success: therefore, there were many 
apostles proper besides the thirteen who were first in the office. 
There were many such apostles proper in the year 58, when both 
their existence and that of pretenders to the station, as will 
hereafter be seen, was recognised in the epistle to the Galatians 
— many such in the year 60, when the Corinthians were cau- 
tioned against persons who falsely usurped the character — 
many such about the year 96, when "the angel of the church 
of Ephesus" had " tried" and convicted some of the false ones. 
Can any reasonable man ask stronger proof that apostles pro- 
per were intended to be spread over the Church generally, and 
to be retained in it permanently 1 

3. In some of the foregoing arguments we have a strong 
presumption against the third hypothesis — that the " false 
apostles " pretended to have, like the thirteen, plenary inspira- 
tion. The lower kinds of inspiration were claimed by the 
"false prophets;" but these other impostors, if they claimed 
inspiration as " apostles," must have arrogated the full measure. 
But this seems very improbable, as there were only eleven at 
first, and only two others afterward, who had the genuine claim 
of this sort : and for the impostors to allege that they were of the 
eleven, would have been madness, particularly when only one 
of the eleven survived; and to assert that they, like the only 
other two plenarily inspired apostles, Matthias and Paul, had 
been thus added to the eleven, would have indicated rather an 
unreflecting audacity, than cool and calculating ariifice. Besides 
the thirteen, only two are known to have been thus inspired, 
Mark and Luke, which shows that such persons were not nume- 
rous enough to encourage pretenders : and these two are not 
called apostles, which further shows, that even plenary inspi- 
ration did not imply apostleship; so that the impostors could 
not have relied on this pretence alone, but must have alleged 
other grounds for their claim. And this brings us to the result, 
that the criterion of apostleship proper was something different 
from inspiration, as it was from the being a special witness — 
23* 



270 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES 

men might have, and did have this office, without either of 
these qualifications. This is a sufficient disproof of the theory 
now before us. 

As, however, it is respectably supported by commentators, we 
shall add some further remarks on the opinion that the pre- 
tenders arrogated full inspiration as the basis of their alleged 
apostleship. Such a counterfeit implying the rankest spiritual 
ambition, it would have been more consistent with their evil 
purpose to assume independent chieftainship, and pretend to be 
Christ, with unlimited authority, than to claim only the de- 
pendent chieftainship, which would be fettered by Christianity 
as already revealed, and by the rights of those of the fully 
inspired thirteen who might come in contact with them. 
Accordingly, we read in history (Josephus) of various false 
Christs, but nowhere of false apostles who aspired to apostolic 
plenary inspiration. This latter assertion we make on the 
indirect authority of Hammond, who regards Cerinthus as a 
false apostle, without mentioning any others. For this char- 
acter of Cerinthus, he quotes Cains in Eusebius, who, however, 
does not state that Cerinthus claimed to be himself an apostle, 
but only that he " pretended revelations written by some great 
apostle, us vtto a-nocFToXov neyalov, and related prodigious narrations 
as showed him by angels." This being the only case given by 
Hammond, we presume no other was to be found.* And this, 
obviously, was not a case of arrogating apostolic inspiration, 
but only of passing a counterfeit revelation ascribed to some 
other person as a "great apostle, 1 ' probably one of the " prime " 
or primary ones, as Hammond argues. As to the alleged 
agency of " angels "in showing him " wonderful things," such 
a pretension put Cerinthus below the false prophets, in the 
claim of inspiration, and of course far below the sort of false 
apostles here supposed; for the true Christian ''prophets" 
held direct communication with God, though not of the 
plenary kind. (See Hammond on Rev. ii. 2, note a, and 
Cruse's Eusebius, p. 113.) Cerinthus was one of the chief 
pretenders who professed to keep within the Christian palej 
and if he did not claim apostolic inspiration, it is highly proba- 
ble no other pretender did, and infinitely improbable that so 
many did as to justify, in that sense, the broad denunciation of 
"false apostles," and the broad allusion to "them which say 
they are apostles, and are not." 

Further: if apostolic plenary inspiration had been counter- 
feited in that age, we might expect the counterfeit to be in- 
cluded in the warning against the untrue "spirits 3" but this is 

* Poole's Synopsis, on Rev. ii. 2, quotes Parseus for Ebion's being a "false 
prophet:" whether "fiilse apostle" is meant, we do not. know. The existence of 
such a person is doubtful. Mosh elm's remarks are to this effect. Eusebius 
does not mention him, though Milner, we suppose inadvertently, says he does. 
If there weie ever such a person, it does not appear that he claimed plenary 
inspiration. 



MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 271 

not the case; on the contrary, the only warning is against 
"false prophets," or pretenders to the lower kinds of inspira- 
tion. St. John, thirty years alter Si. Paul had denounced the 
"false apostles," and only six years before doing so himself, 
makes no allusion whatever to them, in his caution concerning 
the ''spirits;" and the omission is unaccountable on the hypo- 
thesis that they claimed to be '-spirits" of apostolic pre- 
eminence — " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the 
spirits whether they are of God; because mm iy false prophets 
are gone out into the world " — only " false prophets, 7 ' not false 
apostles in the guise of " spirits." Surely the greater impos- 
ture, had it existed, would have been exposed \\ ith the less. 
The unavoidable inference is, therefore, that the greater exi.-ted 
not — in other words, there were none who claimed falsely 
apostolic plenary inspiration — the "false apostles" were not 
such in this sense. 

4. We know of but one other sense in which the pretence to 
apostleship could have been raised — it must have been that of 
possessing the apostolic office — that of being apostles proper in 
the Christian ministry. For this view of the case there are 
several arguments. 1. It is, so far as we can perceive, the only 
explanation left us;* the other theories being untenable. 2. It 
agrees with the points established in the last paragraph of our 
second head, and in the first of our third head, that tiiere were 
apostles proper who were not of the thirteen — many of them; 
and these as a general and permanent feature in the Church — 
apostles proper, who, being neither special witnesses, nor plena- 
rily inspired, nor inspired in any extraordinary manner, could 
only have been such in the ordinary official or ministerial char- 
acter. 3. It agrees with the scriptural fact, that there were 
apostles proper, not of the thirteen, not special witnesses, not 
having plenary inspiration, as Barnabas, Silv.mus and Timothy, 
Andronicus and Junia; and with the scriptural intimation that 
aposiles proper were at least somewhat numerous, k * are all 
apostles?" 4. Paul contrasts the " false aposiles" with those 
who were aposiles among the " ministers of righteousness." as 
will be seen on recurring to our first quotation, i. e. with ihose 
Who held apostolic rank in the Christian ministry : it was as 
"ministers" that they counterfeited the apostleship, not, so far 
as appears, as men extraordinarily endowed ; they may perhaps 
have claimed the lower inspiration, and so have been kt false 



* We have not deemed worthy of notice the opinion that the false apostleship 
was claimed on the pretence of bein^ sent by Christ personally, whether before 
or after his ascension. It is a very weak notion. If it regard a simple mission 
by Christ, as the one c.iterion of the apostleship, it is con trad cted by the case 
of the seventy, Sent by him, yet not apostles; and by the cases of Matthias,, 
Barnabas, Silvanus, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia, not sent by him, yet aposiles. 
If it do not regaid this as the one criterion, it leaves the nature of the apostleship 
undefined, and so settles nothing concerning the position assumed in Uie Church 
by die " false apostles^" 



272 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES 

prophets " likewise ; more probably, they introduced false tra-' 
ditions under the high authority they assumed, or gave here- 
tical glosses and explanations of the true Gospel. 5. The same 
quotation shows that they pretended to apostleship as kC work- 
ers " or workmen : they were l deceitful workmen ;" not like 
Timothy, u workmen that needed not to be ashamed, rightly 
dividing the word of truth ;" they pretended to be "spiritual 
workmen or laborers," (see Parkhurst,) in other words, minis- 
ters of the Gospel ; not the passive channels of a new revelation, 
but laborers in the one already given ; and such in the apostolic 
character. 6. The declaration, in the same passage, u whose 
end shall be according to their works," is parallel with that of 
St. Jude, " and perished in the gainsaying of Core : " the sin of 
Korah was chiefly^the assumption of the priesthood; as occur- 
ring in the time of Jude, that kind of " gainsaying" must have 
meant the assumption of the Christian ministry ; and the impos- 
tors before us assumed that ministry under the pretence of 
being " apostles:" but they were to " perish " for their impiety, 
their " end would be according to their works " — the parallel- 
ism seems complete — and it shows that the apostleship they 
counterfeited was ministerial, official — it was the apostleship 
proper, with its ordinary rights and functions. 

At this point of our argument, we bring into fuller notice the 
third passage relating to these impostors — "An apostle, not of 
a*, men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." An apostle "of 
men " was one who had only human authority — an apostle "by 
man" was one set apart by human ordainers who had, and who 
conferred the divine commission, the ordainers being the autho- 
rized agents of our Lord— an apostle by "Jesus Christ" was 
one set apart by Christ himself. (See Aretius, Poole's Synop.,. 
and Annot.,* Doddridge, and Parkhurst on a™.) There were 
three classes of men, therefore, who were called "apostles" — 
those without the divine commission, or "false apostles" — 
those commissioned by Christ indirectly, through the agency of 
his commissioned ministers — and those commissioned by Christ 
in person. And these three classes were equally designated 
"apostles;" the last two, justly; the first, without a right to 
the appellation. In other words, the apostles " of men " pre- 
tended to have the same office, and the apostles " by man " had 
the same office, with the apostles " by Jesus Christ." To be a 
special witness of the resurrection was not requisite, neither 
was inspiration requisite for this office; and the mere function 
of a " messenger " can as little be predicated of the two other 
classes, as of the principal class to which the eleven and Paul 
belonged. This text is a clear and final proof that the apostle- 
ship proper was to be transmitted by succession, and was so 



Aretius, on Gal. i. 1, allows Timothy and some others to have had the title 
"apostle ; " and Poole's Synopsis and Annotations allow the same in the case of 
Silas : their authority can only be 1 Thess. ii. 6* 



MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 273 

transmitted ; as is obvious in the phrase "an apostle by man :" 
and this was the sort of commission counterfeited by the impos- 
tors. The rule and fact of such a succession, and the false 
assumptions of it, show that the office was prevalent in the 
Church at large. And the placing of this rule and fact of apos- 
tolic succession "by" human ordainers divinely commissioned, 
on perpetual record, is an intimation that the apostolic office 
was never to cease. 

We think we have now established, from the case and the 
passages before us, that the apostleship, as an ordinary minis- 
terial office, belonged to the Christian priesthood in the years 
58 and 60, and remained in it till the year 98 ; and this is equi- 
valent to its being intended for permanence in the Church : its 
intended permanence is conclusively shown from its being 
transmitted by succession. Perhaps no further remarks are 
necessary, to evince the support given by this fact to Epis- 
copacy. Lest, however, the advocates of parity should say that 
our argument is incomplete — lest they should allege that the 
apostles proper, in their permanent character, were only such 
as their presbyters or presbyter-bishops — we shall endeavor to 
settle this point also. 

And here we first remark, that those only are entitled to 
enter on this particular portion of the discussion, who have aban- 
doned the opinions, if they have ever held them, or who have 
never maintained — that the whole apostolic office proper was 
extraordinary and transient — that the being a special witness of 
the resurrection of Christ was an essential -qualification for the 
apostleship proper — that Timothy must have governed theEphe- 
sian clergy as an " evangelist," because he could not have been an 
apostle proper — that the " prophets and teachers " in Acts xiii. 1, 
whether their joint work was an ordination, a mission, or a 
benediction, could not have been apostles proper — that the 
"presbytery" mentioned by Paul, supposing the word to mean 
a body of ministers, did not consist of apostles proper — that 
Titus and the seven "angels" were not apostles proper — nay, 
that the " messengers," besides being such, could not have been 
apostles proper. In other words, the very discussion of the point 
now before us implies, that nearly the whole structure of the 
parity argument from Scripture must be changed; which 
means, that the old parity argument must, in the main, be 
abandoned. If so, what is left to Non-episcopalians on which 
to base the parity construction of the case of the " false apos- 
tles ? " not much, certainly; perhaps we may say nothing. 
This is indeed a large result, but we are confident it is not over- 
estimated. 

That the apostleship claimed by these pretenders was the 
episcopate, and not mere presbytership, may be proved by 
the various scriptural arguments which show the distinction 
between the two offices, and the superiority of the former — by 
the very expression " apostles and elders " — by the fact that the 



274 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES 

apostles, including Timothy and Titus, who cannot here be 
denied to have been such, ordained and governed the clergy, 
while there is no evidence that mere presbyters did so, &c. We 
need not recapitulate these topics, or enlarge upon them ; they 
are sufficiently developed in our Tract on Episcopacy. The 
impostors, assuming the supreme title, arrogated the supreme 
station. 

Another proof to the same effect is the declaration, " God 
hath set some in the Church, Jirst, apostles." We, have just 
seen that the apostolic office was continued in the Church till 
the end of the first century, in its ordinary rights and functions. 
We here see that that office was made, by God himself, " first" 
in the Church.* Now, the elders or presbyter-bishops, being 
placed under other ministers, such as Timothy and Titus, were 
not " first " in rank, and of course were not apostles. Hence it 
follows inevitably that the " false apostles" did not claim to be 
mere presbyters, but arrogated a higher office, the highest, that 
of apostle-bishops. 

Again: when Paul exclaims, "Am I not an apostle?" he 
intimates that his apostleship had been questioned. But who 
would question his being a mere presbyter, had that been the 
only grade of the ministry ? it would have been gratuitous, to 
deny him a rank with the " ten thousand instructers" of the 
Corinthians. It follows, that his apostleship had been ques- 
tioned as a function superior to that of ministers generally. 
And in asserting it, he includes in the superior function, as 
appropriate to it, some of the ordinary duties of the ministry; 
"Are ye not my work in the Lord?" "The seal of mine apos- 
tleship are ye in the Lord:" that is, the Corinthians had 
received spiritual blessings from him, ordinary in kind, yet 
distinctively such as an apostle could confer — blessings from 
"the Spirit of the living God, written in the fleshly tables of 
their heart." To his imparting such blessings to them Paul 
appealed, as the proof — of what ? not of his being a mere minis- 
ter, which nobody questioned — but of his being a minister of 
the apostolic grade. It is obvious, therefore, that there were 
ordinary ministers of that grade besides the inferior ones. 
And the title assumed by the " false apostles " shows that they 
counterfeited the superior office. They claimed the imparting 
of apostolic benefits, whether by means of preaching, of counsel, 
of benedictions, or of prayers, besides their pretending to 



♦Apostles being "first" in the Church, and bishops being their successors, 
the institution of archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs and popes has no scriptural 
authority. As mere human regulations, such arrangements may, perhaps, (the 
three former, the latter claims too much for this salvo,) be superinduced on the 
Episcopal system, on the same principle that bishops are subjected to the legislation 
and the discipline of the Church. Yet even in this view, as legislation and discipline 
are positively necessary for all fallible men, while the setting of one bishop over an- 
other is never more than constructively necessary, the propriety of the latter is not 
to be argued from that of the former. 



MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 275 

regulate the doctrines of the Church. They arrogated the 
fullest powers that have at any time been ascribed to bishops. 

We conclude then, that the parity exposition of the case of 
the "false apostles" is utterly untenable. Their case, as con- 
nected with the collateral illustrations, is, we think, fated to the 
whole cause of parity. None but the Episcopal key will fit 
these portions of the sacred volume — they all point to Episco- 
pacy as their unquestionable record. 

H. U. O. 



NOTE. 

That it was infinitely improbable that the " false apostles " 
pretended to be of the original twelve or thirteen, will appear 
from such considerations as these:— There are sixteen of our 
bishops in the United States: but never has it been attempted 
to counterfeit the person of any of them, either at home or 
abroad. So, of the twenty-six bishops and archbishops in 
England — of the nineteen bishops and archbishops in Ireland — 
and of the six bishops in Scotland. We may add the same 
remark, so far as we recollect, of all the bishops in the Chris- 
tian world. Persons have feigned to be bishops, as in the 
case of West, and perhaps the Greek mentioned in the accounts 
of Mr. Wesley ; but none have counterfeited the persons of other 
bishops — if otherwise, the cases are so rare and so-obscure as 
not to affect this illustration of our argument. What the impos- 
tors mentioned in Scripture claimed, was, to be apostles or 
bishops in their own persons, not in the persons of any of 
the thirteen. Of course the apostleship was not confined to 
these last. 

Our fellow-citizens generally will perhaps see more clearly 
the force of this analogy, in another case. There are twenty- 
four governors of States in our Union. In no instance has it 
occurred, that any man has pretended to be one of these. The 
same may probably be said of all our magistrates of the higher 
grades. So clear is it, that the " false apostles " would not 
have pretended to be of the original thirteen who held that 
office—and so clear, that others besides the thirteen were made 
apostles — many others. 



THE END. 



7/ 



m 


>w> > _j 




• ~^& > ' zz 


5 




J 


* ^ J> > 


r 




i 


> > : 




3 >* „^> 















3 ^>2§> 



>7> 



5> XM> 

:> > >:> 

2fc> > > 



« 






aC^ 






> >o 

^ ■;.■> > 






3> 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservafionTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



i-3 


■'*> > _^ > 


> j^ 


> > :i> o:s> 




J^ > £ 


> ^ 


r> > > ;» v > » 




► ^ ) f 


> ^ 


» > :£> >) op> 




>' ^ ^ >} < 


> Z^ 


>> » ; ) yy 




> ZJ> > I 


> Z^ 


J> > >:> > ) » 


LJ 


> .vp.53 -> > 


» 


3» ^> > > .» 


-^> 


4p •J* ■> > 


..>> 


:^>- JO > y :» 






» 


J> t > >* *?J> ■;» .' 


» 


" -^ > > J 


► > 




* 


^ ^> > 


^_> 


*;>-> >~> ">"~> > -^ft* >^^ 


> " 


^> ^ J 


' > -> 


1» >) ^>>L> '3» " 


> 


-^_ > > 


"> > 


7i>> >> > ^,> » > 


Z» 


■ £> > ^ 


v> 


^> >> >»> v> 


Z> 


> > 3 


> > 


V > » rr> >}> > > . 


~~> 


:> > 


> >> 


>> > »i> > > 


:> 


:> ;> > 


> j 


y >. > > ^ ? >v> 


* -> 


z> > > 


,1 


>^» ^>^>o >" 


> > 

► » 

> 


:> > >> 

~3» > > ->» > 


> > 




'."> 


*x> > *> > 




>-> ^>1»> "^ 


> 

> 
Z> 






^> >^3 


> 




; 


> ) :> » ^ 



^» » z> 





> 


^> ^ 


^ > 5 ^ 




> 


^ > ^> 


^> >^ ^> 


> > 


^ 
> 


• > > 
» > 3 




* J 


__, 


> > 3 


^> . ) ) " 


\> ) 


3 


^ ^ 3 

► ~> > ^ 

> ^> j> 


> J> > 


> :> 


> 


► > >^> 


> j 

) y 


> 




■^ ^ — 1 




» 
> 


•2> « 




> "> 


j> 


5 > jm 


— * 




> > 


^ 


* > V> 


:> 


> 


D > 




> 7>S> 




> :> 


> > 


^ 


► D 3 


^> 


> 


^> > 




> LX>> 


^ 


► ^> 


> > 




> 5»> 




^ > 


> > 




>;j»3 


~~^ 


> > 


^> ^ 




~k = N"^i^^^ 










-• >J* ' -» 


_j 


^> 


> > 




^>1>> 




> > 


^> > 




"^ 7>r> 


■^ 


^ "> 


3 > 




>Tfe> 


*= 


> > 


> > 




> >^> 


"^ 


»> > 


> > 




>2>V> 


^3 


» > 


> 




"> -)> 


u 


► > 


> ^ 




> J>")>^ 


Z3 


» :> 


> j> 




_> > > 


^3> 




> 


> 




> >i> 




» 


^> 


> 


> 




>>J> 


3 


r> 


2 


k 




> > 


r^» • .: 


> 




> 




3»^> 




> 




> 




> > 


> ^ 


s 


li 






> > ^ 


► ^ 


» 




> 




> > 


> 






^> 




> .■ > 


:> 


^■^ 


► 


s 


^ 


. ) > 


Z> 


~]ji 


> 


-5 


► 


> > 




3 




z> 




> > 


^^ 


^r 




T3 


» 


^> 


^^ 


~^ 




JC 


» 


5 y 


:> 




i 


^ 


» 


~5 


» 






>^J 


► 


> > j 


► 






J2 


^ 


) 'z 


» 






> 3 


^ 


"> > ~n 


^ 


^ 



> :> 

» Z 



Z>Z> 



